Will the real liberals please stand up?

Saipanne

Liberalism largely traces it's roots back to the enlightenment, though an argument could be made to trace it back to the ancient Greeks, we usually begin the movement around the eighteenth century for convenience.

This was an era dominated by two forces, the church and the aristocracy. Both used the tools of dogma, coercion and rule of force to impose their rule.

Liberalism was a rejection of these three pillars. It was founded on the basis that one could use reason, logic and science to persuade people of your point of view. It was a rejection of dogmatic approaches and coercive techniques. That is what being a liberal means to me, at least.

In more recent years we have seen the modern liberals movement use more coercive techniques and dogmatic ideology to further their cause, often using their influence to bully people out of their careers or forcing public apologies out of people for the most minor indiscretion. Movements like SJWs/Feminism have become more associated with such behaviour, apparently abandoning the liberal ideals they claim to represent.

So, why have modern liberals moved towards dogma and coercion? Why do modern day liberals act more like the authoritarians that early liberalism rejected? What happened to all the real liberals?

I'm interested in your thoughts. Do you disagree with my definition of liberalism? Do you disagree with my definition of modern liberals?

Fire away

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Hi OP, it is customary to set out your own views on a topic in this forum and you will need to provide something a bit more substantive on the issues that you want to debate. As is, this is a very broad topic that can include almost anything, so can you please set out the specific issues that you want to discuss and your views on same please?

recedite

I agree with the OP. It should be possible, even expected, for a liberal to speak out against the importation of Islamic ideology in Europe. Yet it is not politically correct to do so in what are today considered "liberal" circles.
You only have to look at the ire that was directed against Donald Trump when he suggested such a thing, and the riots that followed his election.

brickmauser

Saipanne wrote: »

Liberalism largely traces it's roots back to the enlightenment, though an argument could be made to trace it back to the ancient Greeks, we usually begin the movement around the eighteenth century for convenience.

This was an era dominated by two forces, the church and the aristocracy. Both used the tools of dogma, coercion and rule of force to impose their rule.

Liberalism was a rejection of these three pillars. It was founded on the basis that one could use reason, logic and science to persuade people of your point of view. It was a rejection of dogmatic approaches and coercive techniques. That is what being a liberal means to me, at least.

In more recent years we have seen the modern liberals movement use more coercive techniques and dogmatic ideology to further their cause, often using their influence to bully people out of their careers or forcing public apologies out of people for the most minor indiscretion. Movements like SJWs/Feminism have become more associated with such behaviour, apparently abandoning the liberal ideals of they claim to represent.

So, why have modern liberals moved towards dogma and coercion? Why do modern day liberals act more like the authoritarians that early liberalism rejected? What happened to all the real liberals?

I'm interested in your thoughts. Do you disagree with my definition of liberalism? Do you disagree with my definition of modrtn liberals?

Fire away

Humanity is dogmatic - it is a highly effective method of group survival - so when we try to fight our nature we become dogmatic once again. Violent repression by the aristocracy and church led to increasingly radical opposition.

The United Irishmen was an umbrella group for men who had different political visions but were bound by the desire for a free Ireland. Their reasonable demands were met with repression by the Irish Parliament who were themselves quite radical compared to the Tories who opposed any freedom for Ireland. The repression meant that only the most dedicated and fanatical continued to meet and plot rebellion.

Nothing turns a person who is moderate into a radical faster than a beating. This happened in our own country when idealistic left wing students involved in the Civil Rights Movement evolved into hardline Provisional IRA terrorists.

The brutality and corruption and racism of military juntas who threw democrats into prisons incubated the likes of Castro and Guevera who were middle class boys turned militant revolutionaries.

The Bush Presidency which started with a disputed election followed by 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq War became the focus of the left who were behind the Battle of Seattle years before. The success of Obama was a false dawn and the left were hoping Sanders would get into the White House. They were forced to back Hilary after she defeated him and are faced with the appalling vista in their eyes of Trump. So they are doubling down on their left wing ideals and have evolved into the Generation Snowflake who are more intolerant and sensitive than ever.

oscarBravo

Saipanne wrote: »

In more recent years we have seen the modern liberals movement use more coercive techniques and dogmatic ideology to further their cause, often using their influence to bully people out of their careers or forcing public apologies out of people for the most minor indiscretion. Movements like SJWs/Feminism have become more associated with such behaviour, apparently abandoning the liberal ideals they claim to represent.

This sounds like a caricature to me. For one thing, there's no such "movement" as "SJWs"; describing someone as a social justice warrior is, for some bizarre reason, used as a pejorative term by people who feel threatened by the idea that social justice is desirable.

recedite wrote: »

It should be possible, even expected, for a liberal to speak out against the importation of Islamic ideology in Europe.

If you think that arguing against freedom of religion is a duty of liberalism, you don't seem to understand what liberalism is.

You only have to look at the ire that was directed against Donald Trump when he suggested such a thing...

He didn't suggest such a thing. He announced his intention to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Once again, if you think that that was a liberal suggestion, you need to figure out the meaning of the word.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

He didn't suggest such a thing. He announced his intention to ban Muslims from entering the country.
Once again, if you think that that was a liberal suggestion, you need to figure out the meaning of the word.

I'm just pointing out the paradox. How can you be in favour of importing an ideology which is backward, mysogynistic, homophobic, repressive of other ideologies and religious outlooks, and generally un-P.C. while still calling yourself a liberal?

The UK labour party has been grappling with this for a long time. Trying to capture the Pakistani/Bangladeshi demographic without becoming openly anti-semitic and homophobic.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the paradox.

It's not a paradox. You're framing the argument in a very narrow way, and - surprise! - claiming that there's only one logical conclusion.

How can you be in favour of importing an ideology which is backward, mysogynistic, homophobic, repressive of other ideologies and religious outlooks, and generally un-P.C. while still calling yourself a liberal?

By not tarring all adherents to a religion with the same brush.

It's a little bit bizarre that you're demanding that liberals establish their liberal credentials to your personal satisfaction by subscribing to intolerance. You're basically saying that, to be a liberal, we have to be tolerant of fascism.

When you've encountered an apparent contradiction, check your premises.

johnnyskeleton

recedite wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the paradox. How can you be in favour of importing an ideology which is backward, mysogynistic, homophobic, repressive of other ideologies and religious outlooks, and generally un-P.C. while still calling yourself a liberal?

The UK labour party has been grappling with this for a long time. Trying to capture the Pakistani/Bangladeshi demographic without becoming openly anti-semitic and homophobic.

People can have personal and political views that are different. I can be against abortion in my personal life but believe that it should not be criminalised.

Similarly I can be in favour of people being entitled to private beliefs against gay marriage while also being in favour of gay marriage being legal.

As regards importing an "ideology which is backward, mysogynistic, homophobic, repressive of other ideologies and religious outlooks, and generally un-P.C. " well luckily we dont have to import such things because we have one of the finest repressive religions the world has ever seen native to this land. Despite this, we have managed to change the constitution to allow gay marriage.

Again, it is liberal to allow people to believe what they want to believe in private so long as the pubic sphere protects the rights of minorities and those of a different view.

Peregrinus

Saipanne wrote: »

Liberalism largely traces it's roots back to the enlightenment, though an argument could be made to trace it back to the ancient Greeks, we usually begin the movement around the eighteenth century for convenience.

This was an era dominated by two forces, the church and the aristocracy. Both used the tools of dogma, coercion and rule of force to impose their rule.

Liberalism was a rejection of these three pillars. It was founded on the basis that one could use reason, logic and science to persuade people of your point of view. It was a rejection of dogmatic approaches and coercive techniques. That is what being a liberal means to me, at least.

In more recent years we have seen the modern liberals movement use more coercive techniques and dogmatic ideology to further their cause, often using their influence to bully people out of their careers or forcing public apologies out of people for the most minor indiscretion. Movements like SJWs/Feminism have become more associated with such behaviour, apparently abandoning the liberal ideals they claim to represent.

So, why have modern liberals moved towards dogma and coercion? Why do modern day liberals act more like the authoritarians that early liberalism rejected? What happened to all the real liberals?

I'm interested in your thoughts. Do you disagree with my definition of liberalism? Do you disagree with my definition of modern liberals?

Fire away

I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted spectacles, to be honest. Liberalism as it emerged in the eighteenth century may well have been committed to persuading people through reason, logic and science, and to rejecting dogmatism and coercive techniques. But it also gave us The Terror. Arguably you could say that liberalism is more deserving of condemnation than more authoritarian philosphies, since when liberals achieve power they not infrequently betray their own ideals.

OK, maybe that's a bit of a stretch. But the notion that liberals used to be true to liberal ideas but no longer is is, I think, untrue. Power corrupts, and liberals in power are as prone to corruption as anyone else.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I agree with the OP. It should be possible, even expected, for a liberal to speak out against the importation of Islamic ideology in Europe.

It certainly should not. Liberals are - or should be - committed to the free exchange of ideas. And, while they are free to criticise ideas, no liberal would ever object to an idea that it was "imported" from outside Europe. Liberals don't accept the notion that geography confers superiority.

recedite wrote: »

You only have to look at the ire that was directed against Donald Trump when he suggested such a thing, and the riots that followed his election.

Trump is hardly a liberal, though, and certainly not in this respect.

511

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As regards importing an "ideology which is backward, mysogynistic, homophobic, repressive of other ideologies and religious outlooks, and generally un-P.C. " well luckily we dont have to import such things because we have one of the finest repressive religions the world has ever seen native to this land. Despite this, we have managed to change the constitution to allow gay marriage.

So because the Catholic church has a presence in Ireland, we don't have to go through the hassle of importing Islam?

In the case, I hope the Irish people start attending mass again and Catholic church sticks around. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Seeing as Catholics already have their headquarters in the Vatican, I don't think we'll have to worry about militant Catholics conquering vast swaths of land in the name of some self-appointed successor to a prophet anytime soon, not that many Catholics would join such an organization, they seem to be a bit above that sort of behavior seeing as there's isn't really any demand for it.

The paragraph I quoted is just whataboutery, neither religion is desirable and Ireland would be a much nicer place without them.

Chips Lovell

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a paradox. You're framing the argument in a very narrow way, and - surprise! - claiming that there's only one logical conclusion. By not tarring all adherents to a religion with the same brush.

It's a little bit bizarre that you're demanding that liberals establish their liberal credentials to your personal satisfaction by subscribing to intolerance. You're basically saying that, to be a liberal, we have to be tolerant of fascism.

When you've encountered an apparent contradiction, check your premises.

Hold on a second there chief. If you identify as a liberal, you're no longer employ reason and logic to make your points. You'll have to find a different tactic.

Saipanne

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted spectacles, to be honest. Liberalism as it emerged in the eighteenth century may well have been committed to persuading people through reason, logic and science, and to rejecting dogmatism and coercive techniques. But it also gave us The Terror. Arguably you could say that liberalism is more deserving of condemnation than more authoritarian philosphies, since when liberals achieve power they not infrequently betray their own ideals.

OK, maybe that's a bit of a stretch. But the notion that liberals used to be true to liberal ideas but no longer is is, I think, untrue. Power corrupts, and liberals in power are as prone to corruption as anyone else.

To be fair, I didn't say the old guard practiced what they preached. I had a read of my post and I don't think I said that. But their ideals were pretty clear. I had to start my post somewhere, it seemed logical to begin with the enlightenment. But yeah, old liberals waged war too. It still doesn't change the relevance of my final questions.

oscarBravo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Hold on a second there chief. If you identify as a liberal, you're no longer employ reason and logic to make your points. You'll have to find a different tactic.

I could try coercive techniques and dogmatic ideology instead. How's that for you?

topper75

Peregrinus wrote: »

It certainly should not. Liberals are - or should be - committed to the free exchange of ideas. And, while they are free to criticise ideas, no liberal would ever object to an idea that it was "imported" from outside Europe. Liberals don't accept the notion that geography confers superiority.

That idea wasn't that workers should seize the means of production, that women should also be allowed vote, or that nuclear fusion is possible as a future energy source.

That idea is that God sent an angel to talk to some Arabian lad and write stuff down.

Yeah.

You are right. Geography is probably irrelevant there.

DeadHand

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As regards importing an "ideology which is backward, mysogynistic, homophobic, repressive of other ideologies and religious outlooks, and generally un-P.C. " well luckily we dont have to import such things because we have one of the finest repressive religions the world has ever seen native to this land

This is a faulty argument always trotted out in these discussions.

Kind of like saying- 'Well, you had polio, it was cured and you got over it- now you can't complain that someone is trying to unnecessarily inject you with cancer'!

Modern Catholicism isn't even a fraction as malevolent as modern Islam, you can't honestly make that argument- there is no Catholic State cleansing large swathes of territory of anyone who happens to be different, there is no global Catholic terror network attempting to kill as many the perceived enemy as possible (be they man, woman or child) anytime, anywhere.

You mention gay marriage, so let's compare the modern attitudes of the religions in just that area- the referendum was passed in this still largely Catholic country, such a referendum would not have a chance in any Muslim majority country. It would not be conceived or attempted. It's very suggestion would likely ignite violence.

Most Catholics happily co-exist with and respect homosexuals, a minority of devout Catholics may choose not to extend to homosexuals the luxury of marriage while wishing them no harm, the more hardcore may make mean remarks about gay people. Most Muslims view homosexuality and homosexuals as wrong and unacceptable, the more devout among them would like to see them rounded up and jailed, the hardcore believe they must be publicly murdered as a warning.

There's the difference.

In an ideal state religion would play no part on the public stage. If it must, a neutered, relegated native religion is far preferable to a burgeoning, highly political, alien religion.

oscarBravo

DeadHand wrote: »

Modern Catholicism isn't even a fraction as malevolent as modern Islam, you can't honestly make that argument- there is no Catholic State cleansing large swathes of territory of anyone who happens to be different, there is no global Catholic terror network attempting to kill as many the perceived enemy as possible (be they man, woman or child) anytime, anywhere.

Two issues with that argument: one, you can't seriously claim that IS represents "modern Islam". And two, if a Catholic State did spring up somewhere in a foreign country, complete with a revived Inquisition and some nice bloodthirsty crusades, would that be a compelling argument for discriminating against moderate Catholics at home?

Saipanne

Oh look, another religious debate...

oscarBravo

Saipanne wrote: »

Oh look, another religious debate...

Saipanne wrote: »

Liberalism was... founded on the basis that one could use reason, logic and science to persuade people of your point of view.

Those pesky liberals and their debates.

DeadHand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two issues with that argument: one, you can't seriously claim that IS represents "modern Islam". And two, if a Catholic State did spring up somewhere in a foreign country, complete with a revived Inquisition and some nice bloodthirsty crusades, would that be a compelling argument for discriminating against moderate Catholics at home?

Yes, it does. The clue is in the name.

The head of the Islamic State is a BA, MA and PHD in Islamic studies. Are you better versed in Islam than him?

I never suggested discrimination against anyone. You dishonestly introduced that idea in an attempt to smear me. All I ever argued for was a sane immigration policy and zero tolerance for political Islamism at all levels. It cannot be allowed to gain a foothold. I understand that most Muslims are fundamentally good people and apolitical- they too are victims of the poison that has been poured into their ear.

If such a Catholic State existed I certainly would oppose the mass importation from that State of undocumented, military aged young men overwhelming belonging to the same group carrying out the oppression in that country- especially if that migration was characterised by violence and that State was using it to plant their soldiers in enemy territory.

Such a State would not be tolerated in Christian/secular Europe. Yet, it is in the Muslim world- not only tolerated but broadly sympathised with and supported. 27,000 and counting Muslims have traveled to the Islamic paradise to join in the mass rape and enslavement.

To bring "inquisitions" and "crusades", institutions that disappeared centuries ago, into it is feeble. Reread my original post and note the use of the word modern. If you need to go back that far for adequate comparisons you have already lost and lost badly.

oscarBravo

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes, it does. The clue is in the name.

No, it doesn't. The clue is in the blind adherence to values set out a millennium and a half ago.

The head of the Islamic State is a BA, MA and PHD in Islamic studies. Are you better versed in Islam than him?

Nope. Has he claimed that IS represents a modern vision of Islam?

I never suggested discrimination against anyone. You dishonestly introduced that idea in an attempt to smear me.

Actually, recedite did, by suggesting it was illiberal for liberals to condemn Trump's policy of blanket discrimination against Muslims.

All I ever argued for was a sane immigration policy and zero tolerance for political Islamism in any form.

I'm all in favour of rejecting political religiosity in any form, including the very real danger to American society of fundamentalist Christianity's grip on much of the political sphere.

If such a Catholic State existed I certainly would oppose the mass importation from that State of undocumented, military aged young men overwhelming belonging to the same group carrying out the oppression in that country- especially if that migration was characterised by violence and that State was using it to plant their soldiers in enemy territory.

Well, when you can demonstrate that anyone is in favour of the mass importation of ISIS fighters, let me know.

To bring "inquisitions" and "crusades", institutions that disappeared centuries ago, into it is feeble. Reread my original post and note the use of the word modern. If you need to go back that far for adequate comparisons you have already lost and lost badly.

Says the person who claims that ISIS represents modern Islam.

Chips Lovell

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two issues with that argument: one, you can't seriously claim that IS represents "modern Islam".

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes, it does. The clue is in the name.

The official name for North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Are we to believe that it is representative of democracy because it's got it in its name?

DeadHand

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The clue is in the blind adherence to values set out a millennium and a half ago. Nope. Has he claimed that IS represents a modern vision of Islam? Actually, recedite did, by suggesting it was illiberal for liberals to condemn Trump's policy of blanket discrimination against Muslims. I'm all in favour of rejecting political religiosity in any form, including the very real danger to American society of fundamentalist Christianity's grip on much of the political sphere. Well, when you can demonstrate that anyone is in favour of the mass importation of ISIS fighters, let me know. Says the person who claims that ISIS represents modern Islam.

He claims the Islamic State represents absolutely all Islam- ancient, modern and eternal.

So, yes he does claim it represents modern Islam. Him and a literal army of Muslim scholars- doctors, engineers, Imans, etc.- who know far more about Islam than you ever will- despite your blind apologism.

Good for you on your opposition to religious fundamentalists- if you believe Christian fundamentalists in America are scary, just wait until Muslim fundamentalist get a political foothold in Europe- as they inevitably will. Of course, you'll likely blind yourself to that and continue to sneer at those who won't right up to the point you're awoken at dawn every morning by a shrieking primitive in a beard.

Anyone who believes the current plantation of Europe is proper and justified tacitly accepts the importation of Islamic State soldiers* as that has been a significant aspect of the migration.

*Agents now and future agents.

DeadHand

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The official name for North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Are we to believe that it is representative of democracy because it's got it in its name?

A clue is in the name but the better clue is in the actions.

While Korea do not follow the tenets of a true representative democracy, Islamic State follow rigidly the tenets of Islam.

The Islamic State have rock solid doctrinal justification from within Islam for everything they do. They are the naked face of Islam- hence their global appeal.

Chips Lovell

In its own opinion, Islamic State follow rigidly the tenets of Islam. In the opinion of most muslims, it doesn't.

In its own opinion, North Korea is democratic. In the opinion of most democrats, it isn't.

oscarBravo

DeadHand wrote: »

...right up to the point you're awoken at dawn every morning by a shrieking primitive in a beard.

...the current plantation of Europe...

Remind me, OP: who was it you were accusing of abandoning logic and reason?

DeadHand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Remind me, OP: who was it you were accusing of abandoning logic and reason?

It's a coordinated movement of a massive population from one space to another with political, economic and religious factors underlying: it's a plantation.

Condescend all you want- the day is coming.

You'll sniff at me, yet it's perfectly alright for you to talk about inquisitions, crusades and shout "discrimination" at me completely without basis.

Aggressive hypocrisy and double standards are the defining characteristics of the modern Left- becoming ever more loud and desperate as their worldview is rejected by the majority.

You seem an incorrigible fanatic more interested in insult than discussion so I'll leave it here. I dearly hope you are right and I am wrong.

Roll on the French elections and the election of Marine Le Pen: the most positive step a European nation has taken toward self-preservation since the frankly excellent Hungary put up the razor wire fences in response to constant migrant violence.

I'll be checking in to enjoy the "liberal" lamenting.

DeadHand

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In its own opinion, Islamic State follow rigidly the tenets of Islam. In the opinion of most muslims, it doesn't.

In its own opinion, North Korea is democratic. In the opinion of most democrats, it isn't.

Nope, they do exactly what it says on the Islam tin- to the letter.

It's not a matter of opinion, the Islamic State believes in what it does and the fact that more British Muslims serve them them than the armed forces of what is nominally 'their' country along with the fact thousands of Muslim 'Europeans' have flocked to join them along with the fact they find ready recruits among the young Muslims of Europe suggests a worrying number close to home believe also.

It's not a valid comparison- yet, I strongly suggest the NK leadership know full well the scam they are pulling. Their appearance is based on cynicism rather than true belief, in my opinion.

Chips Lovell

I think you shouldn't mistake disagreement for condescension.

Saipanne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Remind me, OP: who was it you were accusing of abandoning logic and reason?

I never said the "alt right" were reasonable or logical. My concern is that modern liberals seem to be abandoning these ideals.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your discussion on Islam. Carry on.

recedite

Saipanne wrote: »

Oh look, another religious debate...

Lets move the debate on to something else then. Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

testaccount123

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two issues with that argument: one, you can't seriously claim that IS represents "modern Islam". And two, if a Catholic State did spring up somewhere in a foreign country, complete with a revived Inquisition and some nice bloodthirsty crusades, would that be a compelling argument for discriminating against moderate Catholics at home?

Here is the modern Islamic view on Homosexuality, according to Muslims themselves.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

No liberal would support importing these views into our societies, any more than they would support importing people with the views of the KKK.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

Actually, "the liberals" just want an intelligent conversation on the subject. A useful starting point is that there are already restrictions on the freedom to bear arms: try arguing that a convicted terrorist should be allowed to own a surface-to-air missile, for example.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

There aren't too many liberals who have a problem with guns being owned by responsible users. Let's face it: if guns were exclusively in the hands of responsible users, the US wouldn't have the insane gun violence problem it currently has.

And that's before we get into the rather bizarre idea that being in favour of recreational drug use and being in favour of owning something whose entire purpose is to cause injury and death are in any way equivalent.

oscarBravo

testaccount123 wrote: »

Here is the modern Islamic view on Homosexuality, according to Muslims themselves.

I don't recall claiming that Islam was a liberal religion.

No liberal would support importing these views into our societies...

I'm not aware of any liberals who do.

Mancomb Seepgood

recedite wrote: »

Lets move the debate on to something else then. Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

The upholding of the right to own guns (of any type, in any number) as well as the elimination of most, if not all restrictions on drugs is a position that would now be more associated with libertarianism rather than those who call themselves liberal - a term that has generally become associated with the Democratic party in America and like minded parties of the centre and ever so slightly left of centre.

I think people get too hung up on the term "liberal" - the meaning has evolved/changed over time.

testaccount123

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't recall claiming that Islam was a liberal religion. I'm not aware of any liberals who do.

You should check the many threads on the subject on Boards so, they are chock full of people who think they are left-wing liberals shouting down the opponents of the reactionary, ultra conservative right wing ideologies of Islam.

Chips Lovell

I think one of the issues hampering a clearer discussion is that the word "liberal" has become quite confusing.

Liberalism developed into quite a distinct ideology in the late 19th and early 20th century. However, in more recent times in the US its been used as a catch-all term for anyone from socialists to centrists and is often used as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me".

It's since been re-imported across the Atlantic and any time it's now used in discussions here there's always the question of what definition of "liberal" your interlocutor is using.

oscarBravo

testaccount123 wrote: »

You should check the many threads on the subject on Boards so, they are chock full of people who think they are left-wing liberals shouting down the opponents of the reactionary, ultra conservative right wing ideologies of Islam.

I think the confusion arises from an inability to distinguish between opposing Islam, and opposing Muslims. Case in point: Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the US.

You can make an argument in favour of such a ban, but not from a liberal perspective; certainly not from the definition of "liberal" proposed in this thread, which prides itself on reason and objectivity.

testaccount123

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think one of the issues hampering a clearer discussion is that the word "liberal" has become quite confusing.

Liberalism developed into quite a distinct ideology in the late 19th and early 20th century. However, in more recent times in the US its been used as a catch-all term for anyone from socialists to centrists and is often used as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me".

It's since been re-imported across the Atlantic and any time it's now used in discussions here there's always the question of what definition of "liberal" your interlocutor is using.

Fair point, maybe this is why lots of modern lefties seem to hate fascism except when it comes in the guise of a religion full of brown people.

Chips Lovell

I don't really understand what you mean there.

Saipanne

recedite wrote: »

Lets move the debate on to something else then. Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

I agree. Again, the modern definition of liberalism does no longer fit the traditional meaning. Alt liberal?

recedite

Lets define some of the tenets of the Alt Liberal ideology then.

Guns are bad but weed is wholesome.

All cultures are equally valid, no matter how horrible or backward they are. We have no right to criticise them, or to expect them to remain in their own country.
International borders are bad, because they hinder multiculturalism which is good. Everyone would live in a happy-clappy multicultural bliss if it wasn't for The Populists*.

Freedom of speech is valued (for anyone who is speaking in favour of the Alt Liberal agenda). Any one tries to criticise Alt Liberal ideals shall be righteously "no-platformed".


*Populism used be the idea of giving democracy to the common people, as distinct from having an oligarchy or a monarchy in charge of things.
But that was back in the days when Liberals were associated with the enlightenment and were quite happy to crack down on ideologies that clashed with their own, so liberals were also populists.

Populists nowadays are the bete noir of the Alt Liberal. Basically anyone who disagrees with their agenda, and especially anyone who beats them in a democratic election.

K-9

recedite wrote: »

Lets move the debate on to something else then. Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

But are the gun laws in America really liberal, the NRA is hardly full of NY liberals. Sane gun restrictions is common sense stuff to me as they are for the greater good. Inaction is largely down to fear of the NRA and their political power at the ballot box, I don't believe that is healthy in a liberal democracy.

Relaxation of drug laws would be a liberal issue, but only extremes such as Libertarianism would see complete legality as freedom!

On religion, yes freedom to express religion but our laws and constitution should respect different views and be secular, above religious tenets and dogma.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think the confusion arises from an inability to distinguish between opposing Islam, and opposing Muslims. Case in point: Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the US.

You can make an argument in favour of such a ban, but not from a liberal perspective; certainly not from the definition of "liberal" proposed in this thread, which prides itself on reason and objectivity.

Exactly, I don't believe in tarring all people with the same brush. That happened with Irish people in the UK in the 70's and the states before that, doesn't end well.

Chips Lovell

recedite wrote: »

Lets move the debate on to something else then. Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

They're very broad equivalences there and I'm not sure how much use they'd be. It's like saying if someone supports prohibiting narcotics, they should support prohibiting alcohol. Or if someone supports the right to own handguns, they should support the right to own chemical weapons.

Few, if any people, would hold such extremist positions for the sake of ideological consistency.

Mancomb Seepgood

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly, I don't believe in tarring all people with the same brush. That happened with Irish people in the UK in the 70's and the states before that, doesn't end well.

The point that some make in regard to Islam is that Islam itself (rather than Islamism) represents a political ideology, and therefore race or nationality doesn't come into it. I don't buy that as it simply misrepresents and slanders hundreds of millions of Muslims who are quite serious about their faith and don't go around killing people. It's a line that's sometimes taken by those in the radical right though.

recedite

K-9 wrote: »

But are the gun laws in America really liberal, the NRA is hardly full of NY liberals. Sane gun restrictions is common sense stuff to me ...

Yes, gun laws in the US are very liberal compared to Europe. I'm not arguing for or against restrictions, just pointing out what the meaning of liberal is. It doesn't always coincide with the Alt Liberal agenda.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

...just pointing out what the meaning of liberal is.

No; you're constructing a straw man. Not only are you inventing your own definition of liberalism in order to have a pop at it, your definition is at odds with the one on which the thread is based.

K-9

recedite wrote: »

Yes, gun laws in the US are very liberal compared to Europe. I'm not arguing for or against restrictions, just pointing out what the meaning of liberal is. It doesn't always coincide with the Alt Liberal agenda.

Then again, conservatives generally wouldn't be as pro gun as they are in America. It's a sign of how fecked up the debate has gone there.

It goes back to how others have pointed out liberalism tends to mean left now in American politics, that wouldn't be the traditional meaning of the term. Sanders had a liberal view on guns as an Independent, Democrats basically want some checks and restrictions on what is currently there.

This whole painting whole groups of diverse opinion in one word is just dumb. It's impossible to have a proper debate too.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; you're constructing a straw man. Not only are you inventing your own definition of liberalism in order to have a pop at it, your definition is at odds with the one on which the thread is based.

Am I?

Saipanne wrote: »

It was founded on the basis that one could use reason, logic and science to persuade people of your point of view. It was a rejection of dogmatic approaches and coercive techniques. That is what being a liberal means to me, at least.

At its core is the freedom to do whatever, just as long as you don't interfere with the next guy's freedom. Eg by shooting at him. So in that context, a law prohibiting murderous assault is sufficient. If people want to play around with guns, a liberal viewpoint would allow that.

Mancomb Seepgood

recedite wrote: »

Am I?
At its core is the freedom to do whatever, just as long as you don't interfere with the next guy's freedom. Eg by shooting at him. So in that context, a law prohibiting murderous assault is sufficient. If people want to play around with guns, a liberal viewpoint would allow that.

I'd suggest that in 2016, that would be better described as a libertarian viewpoint. Supporting some form of gun control law would not preclude someone from considering themselves a liberal. Not that it really matters-most people will look at individual issues and make up their own minds on a case by case basis rather than defining themselves by a single word.