What is the appeal of liberalism?

Gradius

The appeal of liberalism is that it's cathartic to under-developed minds to break things.

Especially things that are "naughty", to maximise the contrarian value.

Especially things that they didn't create, therefore is valueless to them.

It is child-like. It's an interesting phenomenon in early human behaviour as you can see some benefits to opposing the status quo in barbaric times.

But when that attitude is transplanted into a society that is already functioning very well, it surely has only a detrimental effect.

Very easy to manipulate people like this too as all you need to do is champion emotion to control them.

Just to add, this contrarianism is never going to go away. I think it should be mandatory for people who challenge society to be be given extensive exposure to different/competing societies, so as a value system arises earlier.

nofools

Gradius wrote: »

The appeal of liberalism is that it's cathartic to under-developed minds to break things.

Especially things that are "naughty", to maximise the contrarian value.

Especially things that they didn't create, therefore is valueless to them.

It is child-like. It's an interesting phenomenon in early human behaviour as you can see some benefits to opposing the status quo in barbaric times.

But when that attitude is transplanted into a society that is already functioning very well, it surely has only a detrimental effect.

Very easy to manipulate people like this too as all you need to do is champion emotion to control them.

I get you but off course smashing all forms of progress because some of the side effects are bad is illiberal by definition.

So yeah, under developed.

Worrying if more than just a late teenage phase.

Gradius

nofools wrote: »

I get you but off course smashing all forms of progress because some of the side effects are bad is illiberal by definition.

So yeah, under developed.

Worrying if more than just a late teenage phase.

It's very complicated. I think one interesting angle is the value system, or lack thereof.

In a society that functions very well, it is very easy to discount its value. What happens when the contrarian mindset is placed in a society with next to no challenge?

Any challenge becomes attractive. Whether it is self-destructive or not.

Thats when "progress" can be interchanged with "direction", a simple impulse to change, even when it's unwarranted or even negative.

There's that film called the matrix, where all of humankind is put into a virtual reality that is measurably perfect. But it doesn't work because people don't like perfect. Instead, the virtual reality is changed to one of semi-strife, and it's much more acceptable. An interesting idea!

So yeah, if you have a cohort of people that have no measurable value system, they'll destroy what's to hand.

nofools

Gradius wrote: »

It's very complicated. I think one interesting angle is the value system, or lack thereof.

In a society that functions very well, it is very easy to discount its value. What happens when the contrarian mindset is placed in a society with next to no challenge?

Any challenge becomes attractive. Whether it is self-destructive or not.

Thats when "progress" can be interchanged with "direction", a simple impulse to change, even when it's unwarranted or even negative.

There's that film called the matrix, where all of humankind is put into a virtual reality that is measurably perfect. But it doesn't work because people don't like perfect. Instead, the virtual reality is changed to one of semi-strife, and it's much more acceptable. An interesting idea!

So yeah, if you have a cohort of people that have no measurable value system, they'll destroy what's to hand.

Interesting point. I find many have confused value systems and things get blown out of all proportion.

Gradius

nofools wrote: »

Interesting point. I find many have confused value systems and things get blown out of all proportion.

Well the confusion is to be expected from an ideology that thrives primarily on raw emotion. Contradictions come thick and fast.

For example, a nation built on the back of Christianity (mostly) that then strays from it's founding beliefs. Value is lost. There is no connection anymore between the society you live in and the comforts and strengths it provides. All those nice things are simply "there".

Then, in typically contrarian step, some arms are opened wide to a directly competing, far more combative belief system like islam, in that mass immigration is encouraged and celebrated. Because it's "nice", because it's contrarian and it provides a challenge in changing things.

Then societal strife increases, like those beheadings in French churches. The contrarians, now faced with direct implication, instead add yet another, illogical, challenge to their valueless beliefs, namely "all religions" are to blame.

The contradiction and the childish attempt to double down and sidestep responsibility, while finding yet another blamless scapegoat, has all the hallmarks of an immature thought process.

It's very confusing for them and I think society has failed them in a lot of ways. This innate emotion to challenge and destruct should be channelled by society at large in positive directions, as opposed to letting them wander around finding things to break.

kowloon

Gradius wrote: »

The appeal of liberalism is that it's cathartic to under-developed minds to break things.

You could say the appeal of conservatism is that it hangs onto the familiar and the safe for simple minds.

nofools

Gradius wrote: »

Well the confusion is to be expected from an ideology that thrives primarily on raw emotion. Contradictions come thick and fast.

For example, a nation built on the back of Christianity (mostly) that then strays from it's founding beliefs. Value is lost. There is no connection anymore between the society you live in and the comforts and strengths it provides. All those nice things are simply "there".

Then, in typically contrarian step, some arms are opened wide to a directly competing, far more combative belief system like islam, in that mass immigration is encouraged and celebrated. Because it's "nice", because it's contrarian and it provides a challenge in changing things.

Then societal strife increases, like those beheadings in French churches. The contrarians, now faced with direct implication, instead add yet another, illogical, challenge to their valueless beliefs, namely "all religions" are to blame.

The contradiction and the childish attempt to double down and sidestep responsibility, while finding yet another blamless scapegoat, has all the hallmarks of an immature thought process.

It's very confusing for them and I think society has failed them in a lot of ways. This innate emotion to challenge and destruct should be channelled by society at large in positive directions, as opposed to letting them wander around finding things to break.

It is important to keep a sense of scale in that particular subset of the argument.

Terrorism by definition creates a disproportionate fear.

nofools

kowloon wrote: »

You could say the appeal of conservatism is that it hangs onto the familiar and the safe for simple minds.

Equally it is important to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Timeheld traditions have often stood the test of time.

Gradius

kowloon wrote: »

You could say the appeal of conservatism is that it hangs onto the familiar and the safe for simple minds.

But that would be to discredit something that is measurably "good".

When you have a group of cavemen wanting to stick to punching dinosaurs, the bloke that speaks (grunts) up about using spears is a measurable improvement.

When you have a comparatively stable, safe, functioning society, the bloke that insists on the introduction of many people of a historically antagonistic, competing society...that's a measurably bad idea.

Hence the word "progress" means increasingly "change for the sake of change". In other words, it is less and less linked to positivity and more just plain contrarian urges.

kowloon

Is there a point at which you just accept things as they are and call them stable and safe? Who gets to call it? For instance, we have a line below which you're considered living in poverty, the baseline shifts based on how the rest of society is doing. Many conservatives are going to argue that things were fine as they were, why should we ever raise that bar, people surely don't need indoor plumbing or a five-day working week.
People will push for things to improve as long as they can see a way for them to improve but people who either greatly benefit from the status quo or are afraid of change because of fearmongering or whatever are going to hold society back.

nofools

kowloon wrote: »

Is there a point at which you just accept things as they are and call them stable and safe? Who gets to call it? For instance, we have a line below which you're considered living in poverty, the baseline shifts based on how the rest of society is doing. Many conservatives are going to argue that things were fine as they were, why should we ever raise that bar, people surely don't need indoor plumbing or a five-day working week.
People will push for things to improve as long as they can see a way for them to improve but people who either greatly benefit from the status quo or are afraid of change because of fearmongering or whatever are going to hold society back.

Do no harm should be the aim.

Even things like the internet despite all the positives have sizeable negatives like election interference and currently the virulent propagation of conspiracy theories.

To have a stab at your very good question. Bhutan work not to GDP but to GNH, gross national happiness, maybe something like that or more votes on more changes.

ILoveYourVibes

In all honesty though. I don't think many people think about either too much unless they go to vote.

People who voted biden ..i won't call them liberal ..and people who voted trump ..i wouldn't call them conservatives. Trumpism isn't conservatism.

ShatterAlan

Gradius wrote: »

The appeal of liberalism is that it's cathartic to under-developed minds to break things.

Especially things that are "naughty", to maximise the contrarian value.

Especially things that they didn't create, therefore is valueless to them.

It is child-like. It's an interesting phenomenon in early human behaviour as you can see some benefits to opposing the status quo in barbaric times.

But when that attitude is transplanted into a society that is already functioning very well, it surely has only a detrimental effect.

Very easy to manipulate people like this too as all you need to do is champion emotion to control them.

Just to add, this contrarianism is never going to go away. I think it should be mandatory for people who challenge society to be be given extensive exposure to different/competing societies, so as a value system arises earlier.

There is no "age" of liberalism.


There is no epoch whereby tolerance of another was smitten except perhaps within the confines and constructs of the state and those who follow.


Liberalism is a thought that has nothing to do with anything surrounding a modicum of economic stasis.


If we were to both live in a concentration camp, bereft of everything that we loved, wanted or yearned for..freedom, our friends, music, anything and I helped you or you helped me, even though you didn't like the look of my face or I didn't think you deserved more than I. If I thought you were someone I hated but I couldn't say why or why I should do better than you.




That's liberalism

nofools

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There is no "age" of liberalism.


There is no epoch whereby tolerance of another was smitten except perhaps within the confines and constructs of the state and those who follow.


Liberalism is a thought that has nothing to do with anything surrounding a modicum of economic stasis.


If we were to both live in a concentration camp, bereft of everything that we loved, wanted or yearned for..freedom, our friends, music, anything and I helped you or you helped me, even though you didn't like the look of my face or I didn't think you deserved more than I. If I thought you were someone I hated but I couldn't say why or why I should do better than you.




That's liberalism

But why did some wannabe do gooder put you in a concentration camp to begin with?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

I agree but the problem is they would say that they are , wouldn't they?

The contradiction here is in that you've refered to them as "modern liberals" more than once, andhere you agree that they aren't liberal at all.

I think you've fallen into the right=conservative / left=liberal dichotomy - you can be right wing and still maintain liberal and free viewpoints and you can be left wing but still be conservative and rigid in certain repects.

BalcombeSt4

nofools wrote: »

Sounds good but outside of Switzerland there isn't a whole lot of agency associated with being democratic (in name only imo).

Is there a place you can think of that has got the balance right?

I think the Iroquois Confederacy or Six Nations we can learn a lot from. Each nation within this Iroquoian confederacy had a distinct language, territory, and function in the League. And to not go to war & share resources for several centuries is quite impressive, considering Europe was pretty much in a state of non-stop war for the same period, and these were hardly pacifist societiets either. Not perfectby any means but impressive.

It's a hard question to answer, it's a bit like asking has Democracy existed anywhere, bits & pieces of it do around the world, & bits & pieces have existed in different places in different time periods. It's intestng to see how countries in Latin American have largely freed them themselves from US domination. Go to the 1950's when the CIA carried out a massive terrorist campaign by the Dulles brothers because they owned a fruit company in Guatemala, tried to paint Arbenz the democratically elected President as a extreme violent communist, he was pretty moderate actually, he was a modernizer trying to bring the dirt poor native Mayan's out of poverty. And then this is were the domino theory actually occured, Latin American states fell one by one to the US sphere of influence. But contrast Arbenz to Imre Nagy, who the Soviets crushed two years later in Hungary, Imre actually was a committed Communist who was one of the main organizers of cleansing Hungary of Germans. So Imre or Soviets not a great choice is it. But Arbenz or General Montt? Montt is the guy who carried out the worst phase of the Mayan genocide.

And just to be fair to the US so it doesn't seem like I'm picking check out the Knights of Labour

Like Tony Benn put it, every generation has to struggle to win various rights, but there's no final victory & no final defeat, and a lot of rights have been won, take Ireland with the Land League in the 1890's, or the civil rights in the 60 & 70's. During the Russian Revolution people had set up co-operative's, workers councils, factory committees & other voluntary associations were set-up. Once Lenin & co came to power these were the first things to go. The first part of the civil war the Whites are crushed by the Red Army, the second part is the Bolsheviks fighting the actual Socialists, the Anarchist green army, Liberal militias & some very angry sailors who see what Lenin is really about begin risings against the Bolsheviks all over Russia & they last until a bit after Lenin dies & some small guerrilla bands go on into the 1930's. You'll see the same sort of thing in the Spanish Revolution if you read Homeage to Catalonia, working class people making their own products & ways to coordinate actions, Stalinists come along everything falls apart, Franco, the Falangists, Nazi bombers & Italian Fascists take all of Spain.

Building voluntary associations & co-ops is even harder today because people are cynical of politics and for good reasons.
My only advise would be to educate yourself on what is really happening today in the world & educate yourself on what really did happen in the past, because history usually repeats itself.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gradius wrote: »

The appeal of liberalism is that it's cathartic to under-developed minds to break things.

Especially things that are "naughty", to maximise the contrarian value.

Especially things that they didn't create, therefore is valueless to them.

It is child-like. It's an interesting phenomenon in early human behaviour as you can see some benefits to opposing the status quo in barbaric times.

But when that attitude is transplanted into a society that is already functioning very well, it surely has only a detrimental effect.

Very easy to manipulate people like this too as all you need to do is champion emotion to control them.

Just to add, this contrarianism is never going to go away. I think it should be mandatory for people who challenge society to be be given extensive exposure to different/competing societies, so as a value system arises earlier.

We all like to rebel and we all think we know better than our so-called"elders" but what happens when we become the elders and realise: hang on - we might be right. Maybe this alternate viewpoint is a better path for society.

So transplanting said "appeals" into a society "that is already functioning"...? Well, if you ever maage to find one, let me know.

I agree with exposure to other societies, but this should be done objectively, not as some sort of warning code or ego trip.

kowloon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I agree with exposure to other societies, but this should be done objectively, not as some sort of warning code or ego trip.

Cultural appropriation is a good thing. That'll mess with the heads of people trying to tar everyone in "de left" with a big fat brush.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We all like to rebel and we all think we know better than our so-called"elders" but what happens when we become the elders and realise: hang on - we might be right. Maybe this alternate viewpoint is a better path for society.

Well, isn't that what gives rise to the likes of these modern liberals, who aren't very liberal, who are for instance drawing up lists of those who disagree with them, and deem free speech unnecessary..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, isn't that what gives rise to the likes of these modern liberals, who aren't very liberal, who are for instance drawing up lists of those who disagree with them, and deem free speech unnecessary..

I'd argue very few of them are old enough, but you tell me - are you using the word liberal as a political noun or as an adjective?

3d4life

230 posts and counting and OP has not contributed.

Looks like OP has 'done a Fegelien' and run away

An orphan thread - so much for family values.

Where is the 'Ignore User' button ?

Fathom

To what extent are liberalism and conservatism a dichotomy? With all the limitations attributed to such an imprecise, ordinal level of measurement (see Jacques Derrida)? Further, I find these terms tossed about by the OP, as if their conceptual definitions were universal givens, and agreed to by all, without doubt or substantial differences of interpretations. Nonsense. In terms of individual behavior, to what extent do many people pick and identify, or disagree with, a variety of positions contained within what may have been arbitrarily and capriciously dropped into a liberalism or conservatism category? Do they pick some things from both, as well as from other dimensions? Or do they mindlessly goosestep through life claiming their ironclad label, ignoring the smörgåsbord of choices before them? Then again, does this really matter? Here. Share some of my deep fried onions. At this moment in time they matter.

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The contradiction here is in that you've refered to them as "modern liberals" more than once, andhere you agree that they aren't liberal at all.

I think you've fallen into the right=conservative / left=liberal dichotomy - you can be right wing and still maintain liberal and free viewpoints and you can be left wing but still be conservative and rigid in certain repects.

Not really, most people hold a mix of ideas from across the spectrum. I'm not as hung up on the terminology as yourself.

The zealots at either extreme stick to code though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

Not really, most people hold a mix of ideas from across the spectrum. I'm not as hung up on the terminology as yourself.

The zealots at either extreme stick to code though.

This contradicts your previous posts again : if you accept people hold a mix of ideas, why are you labeling people 'liberals'?

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This contradicts your previous posts again : if you accept people hold a mix of ideas, why are you labeling people 'liberals'?

It only contradicts if you use a very narrow definition.

That mix will generally tip to one side of the scale or the other, then it is a question of degree.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

It only contradicts if you use a very narrow definition.

That mix will generally tip to one side of the scale or the other, then it is a question of degree.

... Which means you can't define people as liberal. Just viewpoints.

dotsman

Defcon 1 wrote: »

I can't understand why liberals talk about women's rights and gay rights, but then insist upon massive third world immigration into Europe.

Liberals don't do that.

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... Which means you can't define people as liberal. Just viewpoints.

Yes you can.

silverharp

dotsman wrote: »

Liberals don't do that.

are there no liberals left then? being for example in any way critical of third world immigration into Europe, "everyone" will class it as something verging on far right

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

Yes you can.

Then we come back to my previous question: in what way are the SJW/woke crowd "lberals? - see is you labeled them?

As you say yourself: people are a mix. I'd argue it;s very difficiult to find ANYONE who's viewpoints are entirely concistent with the adjective, to the point the labels are impossible.