Are Liberals ever too liberal?
I ask this after watching Christopher Hitchens destroy a Muslim reporter in a debate on CNN and the one impression that I took away was that liberals are sometimes too liberal and we need to stand up in a way that I see conservatives doing all the time.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Actually, I am not sure what it means to be "too liberal" but yes, certain worldviews are wrong. The liberal argument is that there isn't any standard with which to decide what is wrong and what is right.
We either agree or disagree with the "liberal" point of view. Here, I would argue that they both have valid points of view which should have been used to fight the real power, rather than be divided as enemies based on their ideological grounds. It isn't liberalism. It isn't Muslim faith. It isn't Atheism. Behind all these various worldviews, there are clearly identifiable world powers, sometimes in collusion and sometimes in collision. I would think that we need to find a common ground based upon the goal of dissipation of the power from the very concentrated powers in the world. This is comparable to putting lions and and christians in the colosseum. If the lions and christians are smart, they would have joined the forces and fought the Romans.... But no. The history repeats itself because we are dumb.
AtheistReader
Level 7
Dec 4, 2018
1
Well Paul, It stands to reason that MSM will goad people into certain actions just to make themselves look edgy. Pitting a muslim against a staunch Atheist on a broadcast show is all about sparks and flare. Ratings. As far as fundamental differences go parties and social leanings tend to exaggerate their points of view when put in the lime light. Personally speaking I fully believe people should speak plain. They should say what is on their mind and get it out. Stop worring about social constructs. If people could do that, sure there would be some nasty stuff to come out. Kinda like popping a zit. But holding it in just allows it to fester. However, I believe that there would be more love in this world and kindness. Drop the social lables, and drop the affiliations and just be human beings.
Ceaselessmind
Level 7
Dec 4, 2018
1
You can’t say that liberals are too liberal especially when they’re behavior contradicts the definition of liberal.
Because as a liberal you are supposed to be accepting of all views and to use to evidence to refute any inaccuracies being presented by someone else, and not your own assumptions and bias.
I’m sorry but someone being offended is a bullshit response. It’s an emotionally and biased opinion and to use it as a means to justify censoring and eliminating any form of expression other than your own is as ignorant as any follower of a religion holding up a book as their justification.
I’m sorry but this whole you can’t say this, do that or even tolerate the views of others no matter how offensive you may personally find them isn’t what being liberal stands for.
48thRonin
Level 8
Dec 4, 2018
1
It's the accepting of all views I have an issue with because not all views are worth accepting.
@paul1967 Well that falls under personal opinion and personal freedom.
I personally don’t like that we refer to people as the color of their skin but I’m not going to lose my shit and ostracize someone for doing it because I understand where it came from and that it’s a social practice that some people are proud of.
like Someone saying that I’m ( insert color here ) and I’m proud society ?????? But if that same person was to say ( insert color here ) are superior society ??? even though we know that group pride usually contains a sense of superiority.
It’s the reactionary response to something that we’re already aware of but yet haven’t developed either a tolerance for or an educated solution.
Americans have devolved into something of an ambush predator where they no longer hunt for solutions but instead just lay there and strike at a problem hoping to wound it and they’ll get around to it later.
@Alshaytan What I see that bothers me is the liberal community is overly concerned about offending someone and I'm all for offending people with stupid ideas. An example is when I'm told by a Muslim that if I draw a picture of Mohammed they're offended. Well screw that I'll draw a picture of Mohammed just because it offends them.
@paul1967 Exactly my point liberalism used to embrace and empower thoughts and ideas no matter if they were socially acceptable.
Honestly the liberals of today remind me of the conservatives of the 60’s. Seriously could you imagine if Morrison or Hendrix were to try to perform in today’s society??
I don’t think that it has the same meaning anymore and I don’t think that they even care as long as feel like they’re defeating a self proclaimed enemy
One thing that drives me crazy is this idea that "I'm offended, therefore what you said is offensive..." when often they have nothing to do with each other. Most of the offenses I see are from people with a low emotional IQ and are therefore unable to handle their own shit... so they want the rest of us to handle it for them.
@Alshaytan "Honestly the liberals of today remind me of the conservatives of the 60’s. Seriously could you imagine if Morrison or Hendrix were to try to perform in today’s society??"
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Ok, one more...
expatri
Level 6
Dec 4, 2018
2
Lol Bill Maher the liberals Bill Orielly.
What can I say other than he’s a narrow minded overly opinionated saracastic narcissistic smug arrogant fuck who doesn’t let the opposition speak and believes that a snippy comment is wit.
And the only reason that he has the following that he has is the same reason O’Rielly has his and that’s because we’ve been trained to believe that there’s only two sides of America and that’s our side and the wrong side.
And both of these useless fucks are the personification of our societies disfucntion.
Liberals and conservatives suffer from the same problem and that is that don’t mind being abused as it’s by one of their own.
So yes trump is a god awful embarrassment to us all but Hillary knew that when she convinced him to clear a path the army of republicans that she faced but if she wasn’t such a bag of shit her own self then there wouldn’t have been a need to use a septic tank to improve the smell of her own shit.
And by the way Bernie would’ve won
I don't like extremists on either end of the spectrum.
Piratefish
Level 7
Dec 4, 2018
0
I seriously don't see how this is too liberal. For me, telling the truth without cowering in political innuendoes is the very embodiment of liberal values, which is exactly what Christopher did in this video.
As an ex-Muslim, I know only too well how "moderate" Muslims are the masters of playing dumb in front of Western media when it comes to presenting a sanitized version of Islam. The following sentence actually came out of that idiot's mouth:
"One of the primary goals of Sharia as studied in classical discourse is the protection of the products of the mind"
Can someone please tell me what in the fuck's name this guy is talking about?! The goal of Sharia is the protection of the products of the mind? What kind of jibber jabber bullshit is that?
And of course, it's the extremists that get the most attention! What does this guy expect? Do Catholics go out of their way to remind everyone that not every priest in the their church is a boy-fucker and that how marginalized they feel when people protest on streets?
If you wanna know how "moderate" these Muslims are just watch the following private video of Mehdi Hasan, the poster boy of moderate Muslims on Al Jazeera English, where he reveals his true face:
Darius77
Level 6
Dec 4, 2018
0
I wasn't saying Hitchens was too liberal I was say CNN was being too liberal by pixelating the face of Mohammed
@paul1967 Sorry, my bad! I didn't expect anything else from CNN or any other network for that matter. How are they going to preach the "Islam is a religion of peace" bullshit while portraying Mohammad's cartoons? They know very well what they are dealing with.
PS: The very fact that CNN felt the need to pixelate Mohammad's face is a testament against everything that Muslim was arguing for. You don't see CNN pixelating anti-Semitic cartoons, do you? So, they know too well what awaits their precious network if they dare to show those cartoons.
I consider myself a liberal, but one policy area where I would differ with many people is reuniting bad parents with their children. Kids go into the foster care system because their parent(s) have screwed up somehow, and the goal is always to give the child(ren) back to the parent, who presumably has gotten his/her act together. I don't think society should tolerate parents who keep going back to drugs, gambling, unstable romantic partners, etc. I think parents should get ONE chance to reunite with their kids, and if they mess that up, boom!, it's over, parental rights are revoked and the kids go to a relative (if there is a stable relative), or are made available for adoption. It's okay to practice your tennis serve or the piano, but I don't think you should be allowed to practice how to be a parent, cos if you are screwing it up, you are screwing someone else up.
citronella
Level 7
Dec 4, 2018
1
I agree fully. People screw up so a chance to fix the problem is reasonable sometimes but people who screw up a second and a third time will never become good parents.
Liberal does not have to equate to milquetoast. Or more exactly, being welcoming, kind, inclusive and egalitarian does not necessarily equate to being a milquetoast.
On the other hand it's true that the Democratic party, which in the US is most of what we have to represent liberal ideals, can't get out of its own way, seems conflict-averse, and in fact, decision-averse.
I think at its most basic level this reflects that American conservatism is no longer a big-tent ideology, it became Tea Party-driven and then sold out to Trump -- and underlying all this is the fact that a major constituency of the GOP is evangelicals, who are more a political movement than a religious movement anymore, and they are of course inherently ideologically narrow. Whereas the Democratic party encompasses democratic socialist progressives, centrist Plutocrats, "red state" Democrats who are ideologically indistinguishable from Republicans, and everything in between. So it's a lot less cohesive.
mordant
Level 8
Dec 4, 2018
1
What we need is egalitarian classical liberal capitalism.
Good question. We must differentiate between liberalism and regressive leftism, which is hijacking the liberal narrative. I consider myself to be a classical liberal, but do not identify with the policies of the U.S. Democrats, with the Canadian NDP or Liberal party, or the British Labour party.
I really miss Hitchens. Sometimes I wish that Sam Harris would debate with Hitchens' energy.
PBuck0145
Level 7
Dec 4, 2018
2
Great video
@paul1967 unless you get hung up on the whole facts thing, at which point you'll notice he's wrecklessly mixing up enlightenment era liberalism of Locke with the reactionary fascist-defending bastardization of the term by 20th century classical liberals. The two ideologies are enemies. Classical liberalism flushes all its individuality bullshit right out to defend its corporate masters any chance it gets. If you think "classical" liberalism is liberalism at all you probably believe the current GOP still has plenty in common with Lincoln's Republican Party. I assure you youll find they're connected only semantically if you decide to pay any attention to what went on in the interim.
@paul1967 I hadnt heard of the revival of the classical liberal label in my lifetime until the last couple years with the free speech warriors like Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogans podcasts all the time these days. Most of them sound fairly intelligent on the surface. JP tends to wind up railing against everyone elses definition of liberalism for expecting equality of outcome. Then he'll turn around and deploy the same specious expectations for whatever reason he feels put upon (ie advocating forced monogamy to end the favor for alpha males). Its just another way for a conservative to dogwhistle his mysogyny without associating himself with racists. Its the new wave of archie bunker armchair conservatism with carte blanch not to commit to any consistent philosophy. I don't think any of them or many of us have ever been confused about who is actually a liberal and who isnt.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Dog Lovers
1389 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.