Liberals who aren't liberal

RobertKK

A society needs the right mix of liberalism and conservatism. Nothing extreme on either side. When we get extreme liberalism or conservatism, it isn't good, it may appear good to some who are a bit extreme on either side, but when the imbalance becomes too strong, it leads to a counter reaction.
An example would be the very liberal response to the migrant crisis, one could argue a country like Germany with Merkel was being compassionate, but the lack of controls on the immigration led to a rise in the far right, it was used by people in Brexit referendum.
Of course Germany and the EU reacted to this, but it was after the damage was done.
We need a balance between things viewed as liberal and conservative, when it goes out of balance the consequences are usually negative.
So while the topic is about illiberal liberals, the problem exists of being too liberal or too conservative is in my opinion bad for society.

Hedgelayer

Billy Mays wrote: »

No not really

Can you link us to some data showing most liberals are divorced or seperated?

Cheers in advance

We all have equal abilities to observe with our own intellect.

You don't have to go and do the research, it's quite obvious these liberals are all on their own.

Very rarely you'll see a liberal husband tag along with the support of his liberal wife....

I think you know I'm right, but you're just being pedantic by asking me to search for stats and data....

Nice try though....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Billy Mays wrote: »

No not really

Can you link us to some data showing most liberals are divorced or seperated?

Cheers in advance

We all have equal abilities to observe with our own intellect.

You don't have to go and do the research, it's quite obvious these liberals are all on their own.

Very rarely you'll see a liberal husband tag along with the support of his liberal wife....

I think you know I'm right, but you're just being pedantic by asking me to search for stats and data....

Nice try though....

So, 'no, I cant" then?

How many liberals do you know?

Nobelium

RobertKK wrote: »

A society needs the right mix of liberalism and conservatism. Nothing extreme on either side. When we get extreme liberalism or conservatism, it isn't good, it may appear good to some who are a bit extreme on either side, but when the imbalance becomes too strong, it leads to a counter reaction.
An example would be the very liberal response to the migrant crisis, one could argue a country like Germany with Merkel was being compassionate, but the lack of controls on the immigration led to a rise in the far right, it was used by people in Brexit referendum.
Of course Germany and the EU reacted to this, but it was after the damage was done.
We need a balance between things viewed as liberal and conservative, when it goes out of balance the consequences are usually negative.
So while the topic is about illiberal liberals, the problem exists of being too liberal or too conservative is in my opinion bad for society.

The crux of the problem is a lot of people are no longer examining each issue and deciding the best solution on it's own merits. Instead they have devolved their thinking to the divide and conquest strategy of "team left" or "team right" and have no interest in determining the most optimal/effective solution, regardless of it being so called left or right.

Hedgelayer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, 'no, I cant" then?

How many liberals do you know?

A few too many to be honest.

They're ok socially and say if you meet them now and again and don't talk about anything to do with social justice or environmental issues you'll get some common ground.

But nearly always the conversation goes paps of Anu up....

When they start to try to convert people who don't give a toss about social justice....

Instead of learning about why people are different they're just fight or flight.

It's not hard to accept some people are right leaning, but these justice warriors are warriors that's for sure....

A lot are unemployed too and wasters.
Accidemically intelligent and have the ability to be productive and add something to society.
But sadly they can't blend in with the average person.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, 'no, I cant" then?

How many liberals do you know?

A few too many to be honest.

They're ok socially and say if you meet them now and again and don't talk about anything to do with social justice or environmental issues you'll get some common ground.

But nearly always the conversation goes paps of Anu up....

When they start to try to convert people who don't give a toss about social justice....

Instead of learning about why people are different they're just fight or flight.

It's not hard to accept some people are right leaning, but these justice warriors are warriors that's for sure....

A lot are unemployed too and wasters.
Accidemically intelligent and have the ability to be productive and add something to society.
But sadly they can't blend in with the average person.

I asked how many? The only answer I need is a number.
Even a rough one.

Hedgelayer

Ok there's Emma, Stephen, Stephanie, Billy, Joy, two Kierans, Andrea, Lesley, Debbie and her partner don't remember his name....

Say 11 off the top of my head.
I've missed a few alright.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Ok there's Emma, Stephen, Stephanie, Billy, Joy, two Kierans, Andrea, Lesley, Debbie and her partner don't remember his name....

Say 11 off the top of my head.
I've missed a few alright.

Grand, so. Nowhere near enougjt to make a representative statement then. That's that agreed up, so.

Hedgelayer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Grand, so. Nowhere near enougjt to make a representative statement then. That's that agreed up, so.

Some of them don't know each other but they're all very similar with their style, bitterness towards their exes, and hatred for Donald Trump right wing politics and the Catholic church

So I think you're wrong there.

So we have to disagree on that sweet heart....

Hedgelayer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I asked how many? The only answer I need is a number.
Even a rough one.

By the way are you a liberal ?

Wouldn't being a moderate be more common sense ?

paw patrol

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh it's easy to determine what he is concerned about: Does he highlight crimes against children or rape when they're not committed by Muslims? No.

Does he highlight crimes by Muslims when they don't involve rape or children? Yes.
And so on....

Keep dissecting the things he highlights and you'll see he only highlights crimes by Muslims and doesn't highlight similar crimes by white people. So it's clear he sees Muslims as the focus because that's what his followers want To hear. Bad news about Muslims.

If he was highlighting rape and crimes against children across the board even when it doesn't suit him to do so (such as the EDL members who were merrily abusing children) then it would be much more likely he cares about protecting children. But clearly he cares only about highlighting Muslim crimes, not the not the victims. His behaviour makes clear his priorities.

You responded to the part of the post that had nothing to do with the thread topic. Anything about the thread?

You missed the point that in these cases the agents of the state protected the abusers because of fears that people would realise that some of the newer members of british society has odd views about white girls.

Perhaps with the exception of politicans in the past never had the UK seen such protection or refusal to act.
That in itself should have led to hangings.

They even had an MP (Naz Shah Labour) attack the victims retweeting a tweet telling the victims to "shut up for the sake of diversity",

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4299167/corbyn-ally-shares-message-telling-rotherham-sex-abuse-victims-to-be-quiet-for-the-good-of-diversity/
there was an extra level of abuse here and the state/media was no advocate.


It's insane that you would find fault with a man defending and highlighting systematic child abuse...its kinda like you think it should have been kept on the "qt" and damn him for his actions. Otherwise there is no reason to your comments.

So take you bullsh8t elsewhere you are clutching at straws . Robinson did good in that case. Deal with it.

recedite

Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse came out with a few strange comments too.
In advance of any prosecutions, he had already decided that there was no religious or cultural link involved. It was all to do with "the night time economy"

There is no religious basis for this...Where there is involvement of Asian men or men of Pakistani origin, he points to a practical, rather than cultural explanation – the fact that in the areas where grooming scandals have been uncovered, those controlling the night-time economy, people working through the night in takeaways and driving minicabs, are predominantly Asian men. He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.
“Who offers those things? In certain parts of the country, the place they go is the night-time economy,” he says. “Where you have Pakistani men, Asian men, disproportionately employed in the night-time economy, they are going to be more involved in this kind of activity than perhaps white men are. We keep hearing people talk about a problem in the north and the Midlands, and that’s where you have lots of minicab drivers, lots of people employed in takeaways, from that kind of background. If you have a preponderance of Asians working in those fields.

One question though. Where are all the Chinese rape gangs preying on underage white girls? If any ethnic group works more nights, its the Chinese.

SEPT 23 1989

Bobblehats

Send liberals to Liberia. That’ll learn ‘em

ILoveYourVibes

Bobblehats wrote: »

Send liberals to Liberia. That’ll learn ‘em

Dear Liberia ...i would die for her!

Bobblehats

Liberian girrrl..

DrPhilG

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yeah, that guy isn't a "liberal". He's a piece of ****.

He may estue to being one, but he's probably one of those absolute **** bags who goes on about "straight privilege" and ****e too.

You know my post history, and you know I'm a liberal person, but people like that are the worst.

They're like, the Tucker Carlsons of the Republicans. The worst examples.

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Grand, so. Nowhere near enougjt to make a representative statement then. That's that agreed up, so.

Some of them don't know each other but they're all very similar with their style, bitterness towards their exes, and hatred for Donald Trump right wing politics and the Catholic church

So I think you're wrong there.

So we have to disagree on that sweet heart....

What, that 11 people constitutes a representative sample? Ok then....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I asked how many? The only answer I need is a number.
Even a rough one.

By the way are you a liberal ?

Wouldn't being a moderate be more common sense ?

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

ILoveYourVibes

DrPhilG wrote: »

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

Ben Shapiro is very interesting. I don't agree with him on most things. But he often less far right than people think.

I have zero idea what I would call myself. And my opinions are not often based on logical but personal experience.

ILoveYourVibes

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

Liberal used to be for liberty consent of the government and quality before the law.The rejection of authoritarianism. That can be less authoritarian forms of policing. Police having guns might be considered authoritarian.

It favors independent judiciary.

Its divided (very vaguely) into moderates and progressives.

Moderates verge towards elitism (the elite reach the top etc ) and progressives focus on universalism (making suffrage and education universal).

There are different liberal economists ...John Keynes is probably the most famous. He believed budget deficits were a good thing. He thought it stimulated the economy and that govts should intentionally do it.

Sonics2k

DrPhilG wrote: »

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

A valid point, and quiet accurate. The problem though, truthfully, is that in most online discussion (and it's gotten very bad on boards the last few years) is the attitude of 'de libruls' pretty much shuts down any and all discussion.

"PC gone mad" is usually used by those who find out it's not okay to call people a queer or ****** for a laugh. It's also a tired complaint as it's literally been a buzz phrase since the 1960's.

In my time here I've been called both a leftie liberal, and yet somehow a right wing conservative.

The narrative has very much become, you're with us, or you're against us. There's one view or another.

Have a read through the London bus attack thread, and instead of people talking about the vicious attack on two innocent women, there's shots at Muslims, claims it's a false flag, homophobic attacks don't happen and a lot more. It's an absolute train wreck of a thread.

I'm a liberal in the sense I believe in universal healthcare and basic housing. But in turn all working citizens get access to private (better and bigger) housing and the industry regulated by the Government.

BalcombeSt4

Mutant z wrote: »

There seems to be a trend of those who claim to be liberal but are completely intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. They are liberal as long as you agree with them but if anyone so much as strays from their own group think they are attacked, slandered and censored. Why are so many self proclaimed liberals in favour of tighter censorship laws and clamping down on freedom of speech, which is an essence of a true liberal society. Surely being liberal means supporting free speech whether you agree with it or not. The fact is liberalism is about supporting free speech and expression and opposing censorship which is the exact opposite to what so many who claim to be on the liberal spectrum have proposed. It seems liberalism has been hijacked by SJWs and college students, in favour of identity politics which is anything but liberal. Its time real liberals stood up and defended the true liberal values of freedom of speech and democracy.

Liberals have no spine.
Asquith backed down from the alliance of Carson, The UVF & the Tories to put Home Rule on the shelf.
David Llyod George was the last British Liberal to do anything of note, who passed the Liberal Welfare reforms & helped to create the foundations of a welfare state which Labour did in the post-WWII government.

Liberals in America have gone so far over to the right it's basically a one party system, with a radical faction (Republicans) & a moderate faction (Democrats), there's no working class party or party for working class people like Labour in the UK.

recedite

Sonics2k wrote: »

The narrative has very much become, you're with us, or you're against us. There's one view or another.

Have a read through the London bus attack thread, and instead of people talking about the vicious attack on two innocent women, there's shots at Muslims, claims it's a false flag, homophobic attacks don't happen and a lot more. It's an absolute train wreck of a thread.

You're right on the first point, but you need to look in the mirror.
I have read the bus attack thread, and none of those claims exist in it.
The counter claims exist alright - there are plenty of strawman arguments in other words.

Sonics2k

recedite wrote: »

You're right on the first point, but you need to look in the mirror.
I have read the bus attack thread, and none of those claims exist in it.
The counter claims exist alright - there are plenty of strawman arguments in other words.

Really?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Because of religious beliefs

(check his post history)

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It’s the BBC they ain’t going to mention the Religious angle

Birneybau wrote: »

4 lads arrested, one had been speaking Spanish. But sure, religion of peace...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/07/two-women-left-bloodied-in-homophobic-attack-on-london-bus

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

Will be the official religion of all Europe soon enough.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

My feeling is that this was a gang of scumbags, who are used to bullying, humiliating and intimidating people. Had they not stumbled upon the lesbian couple, they would have harassed somebody else. They are just out to create general mischief, but I'm sure anybody who was "different" would have been a target. I don't feel they sought out homosexuals, but targeted them as they woul a "nerdy" teenager.

That's literally just from the first 6 pages after a very, very quick glance.

El_Duderino 09

paw patrol wrote: »

It's insane that you would find fault with a man defending and highlighting systematic child abuse...its kinda like you think it should have been kept on the "qt" and damn him for his actions. Otherwise there is no reason to your comments.

So take you bullsh8t elsewhere you are clutching at straws . Robinson did good in that case. Deal with it.

I never said I found fault with his highlighting the Rotherham rape gang. I said his concern isn't with rape or protecting children. His concern is highlighting crimes committed by Muslims. His followers want to hear about Muslims in a negative light and he provides what they want.

So just to clarify, you saying "It's insane that you would find fault with a man defending and highlighting systematic child abuse...its kinda like you think it should have been kept on the "qt" and damn him for his actions. Otherwise there is no reason to your comments." is a strawman because I didn't say those things.

My point is that he's not like an investigative journalist, trying to protect children from whoever threatens them. He's only interested in crimes committed by Muslims.

I'll go as far as to say that if all circumstances were the same and there was a white British rape gang in Rotherham that wasn't being tackled by police, he never would have gotten involved. His concern isn't children or rape. His concern is negative news about Muslims because his followers enjoy that.

Again, you've focuses on a TR point which has nothing to do with the thread. Because you used a strawman argument I needed to clarify my position. But it's got nothing to do with the thread topic.

We got on to this because TR, the supposed champion of free speech, walked up to and punched a man who was exercising free speech by calling him a wanker ( I think).

His MO is to play the victim about being silenced by the state and YouTube etc, and his followers think that's wrong. But TR goes out of his way to walk up to a man using free speech uses violence to silence him. And his followers think he was right. Incredible

I dread to think what state the world would descend into if TR got the kind of free speech he lives by. "Nobody should silence me, but I (and my pack of thugs) will use violence against someone who says things I don't like"

Hedgelayer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

Look it, I've not time for sociopathic conversation or dealing with narcissism.

Trying to distort people's reality....

Your definition or the real definition, that's a very sociopathic response to a question.....

I think we're reading from a different script, if you cannot answer a simple question we'll leave it there sweetheart.

recedite

Sonics2k wrote: »

Really?
That's literally just from the first 6 pages after a very, very quick glance.

The first 2 links mention "religion". No mention of muslims. All the major world religions are classified as "homophobic" nowadays. Look at Israel Folau, the Australian Rugby player sacked for quoting on his own social media account a verse taken directly from the bible.

Your 3rd link "4 lads arrested, one had been speaking Spanish. But sure, religion of peace.." is actually one of those strawman posts I referred to.
If you can't even tell the difference, its no wonder you completely misunderstood most of the thread.

Your 4th link..

"My feeling is that this was a gang of scumbags, who are used to bullying, humiliating and intimidating people. Had they not stumbled upon the lesbian couple, they would have harassed somebody else. They are just out to create general mischief, but I'm sure anybody who was "different" would have been a target. I don't feel they sought out homosexuals, but targeted them as they would a "nerdy" teenager."

...is a very calm and reasonable post. It absolutely contradicts your claim that "It's an absolute train wreck of a thread".

Anyway, if you have anything else to add, please take it to the other thread.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I dread to think what state the world would descend into if TR got the kind of free speech he lives by. "Nobody should silence me, but I (and my pack of thugs) will use violence against someone who says things I don't like"

You really shouldn't use quotation marks when you are just making up stuff. Quotation marks are used when you are quoting something the person has actually said.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote: »

You really shouldn't use quotation marks when you are just making up stuff. Quotation marks are used when you are quoting something the person has actually said.

Lol. You're right. I used the wrong punctuation. It should have been a paraphrase rather than a quotation.

Everyone loves learning about grammar. Thanks.