| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On March 05 2012 10:23 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, that's the point. Liberalism refers to the entire political left, and it is a misnomer. What the hell are we doing It was actually "liberal" who pulled the wrong wiki quote and I accused you, I'm very sorry | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
But that's not what Liberal means in American politics, so let's stop talking about it. We all know that Liberal in the modern era refers to the socially progressive and more socialist-ish economic policies. It's just a shift in language. So let's move on. Stereotypes are frequently incorrect, xDaunt, and nobody likes it on either side. It's really just rather rude. I like the 3D spectrum a lot more. For instance, I would call myself a centrist economically, socially libertarian, and an interventionist. However, it's not okay to tell me what I believe after I say this. I'll tell you what I believe, thank you very much. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:23 DoubleReed wrote: Liberalism is things like the Magna Carta and stuff like that. John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. It doesn't refer to modern politics. I would say almost all Americans are Liberals in the classical sense. It was in contrast to divine right and monarchies of the day. But that's not what Liberal means in American politics, so let's stop talking about it. We all know that Liberal in the modern era refers to the socially progressive and more socialist-ish economic policies. It's just a shift in language. So let's move on. In the classical sense, I'm more of a liberal than any democrat. Stereotypes are frequently incorrect, xDaunt, and nobody likes it on either side. It's really just rather rude. I like the 3D spectrum a lot more. For instance, I would call myself a centrist economically, socially libertarian, and an interventionist. Stereotypes may be incorrect at times, but they are incredibly reliable. There's reason why people find them so offensive: they work. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:38 xDaunt wrote: In the classical sense, I'm more of a liberal than any democrat. Stereotypes may be incorrect at times, but they are incredibly reliable. There's reason why people find them so offensive: they work. So what would you think of the stereotype that everyone who votes republican is a gun toting bible thumping anti abortion warmonger who can't stomach gay people loving each other and drives a chevy/ford truck with cow balls hanging off the hitch? Personally I think it's bullshit also. You seem convinced otherwise though. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:57 DamnCats wrote: So what would you think of the stereotype that everyone who votes republican is a gun toting bible thumping anti abortion warmonger who can't stomach gay people loving each other and drives a chevy/ford truck with cow balls hanging off the hitch? Personally I think it's bullshit also. You seem convinced otherwise though. I bet he's going to take offense to that, because it must be true if it's the stereotype! | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:38 xDaunt wrote: In the classical sense, I'm more of a liberal than any democrat. Stereotypes may be incorrect at times, but they are incredibly reliable. There's reason why people find them so offensive: they work. Yawn, acting like a jerk isn't very interesting. What, are we on the schoolyard? "I'm more liberal than youuuuuu are!" Seriously? Stereotypes aren't reliable anyway. It's a kind of hindsight bias and cognitive simplicity that is easy for people to associate with reliability. They honestly tend to be rather random. They would be offensive whether or not they are true. That's not why they are offensive. Let's get back to the actual discussion of Obama trouncing Romney. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:57 DamnCats wrote: So what would you think of the stereotype that everyone who votes republican is a gun toting bible thumping anti abortion warmonger who can't stomach gay people loving each other and drives a chevy/ford truck with cow balls hanging off the hitch? Personally I think it's bullshit also. You seem convinced otherwise though. Either that or a lazy bum that was given vast amounts of money by his parents and doesn't know a thing about the real world because he's never worked a day in his life. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:57 DamnCats wrote: So what would you think of the stereotype that everyone who votes republican is a gun toting bible thumping anti abortion warmonger who can't stomach gay people loving each other and drives a chevy/ford truck with cow balls hanging off the hitch? Personally I think it's bullshit also. You seem convinced otherwise though. Well, if you think it's bullshit, then clearly it's not a good stereotype. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
On March 05 2012 13:15 xDaunt wrote: Well, if you think it's bullshit, then clearly it's not a good stereotype. Clearly. "Stereotypes are incredibly reliable, except when they're not." | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2012 13:21 DamnCats wrote: Clearly. "Stereotypes are incredibly reliable, except when they're not." I can't account for user error. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
This is why conservatives get such a bad rap lol. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Not sure what the big deal is. I thought it was well known that in the United States the term "liberal" is inaccurate, as it differs both from the concepts historically understood, and presently used in much of Europe. American statism is incompatible with traditional liberalism, whether they try to workaround the issue with terms like "social liberal" or not. | ||
|
Tor
Canada231 Posts
You sure know how to undermine your own opinions. Also your argument discussing the semantics of "liberalism" was incredibly confused. You meant to be arguing the meaning of the label "liberal" when used in the context of the american political system (you even made a post about it before you got screwed up and got lost on the word "liberalism"), regardless the entire argument was semantic only, but the confusion made for a good laugh. I assure you, not only Democrats, but also Republicans and Libertarians and even Socialists, can be viewed as defending the general definition of "liberalism". The largest difference between a democrat and a republican is that democrats believe in reasonable use of positive liberty, where as republicans emphasize negative liberty (with a light splash of behavioural control based on christian morals). You're off the mark on the duck test (it's just a fallacy when thrown willy-nilly into an argument) I like "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." Another statement from our friend wikipedia: Indeed, Jussim et al. comment that ethnic and gender stereotypes are surprisingly accurate, while stereotypes concerning political affiliation and nationality [14] are much less accurate (couldn't check the citation but it's enough to provide reasonable doubt about your views on political stereotypes) p.s. there is a difference between empirical generalizations and biased slander, and even if you were randomly correct with a stereotype; they're useless and offensive statements unless backed up with evidence (not anecdotal) to support your claim; they often make you look ignorant and intolerant; and worse yet, when used poorly, can actually hinder positive outcomes as they help maintain a negative status quo by reinforcing the stereotype rather than encouraging change or growth. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8578 Posts
On March 05 2012 13:50 liberal wrote: Wow I didn't think grabbing the wikipedia quote would derail the thread so much lol... Not sure what the big deal is. I thought it was well known that in the United States the term "liberal" is inaccurate, as it differs both from the concepts historically understood, and presently used in much of Europe. American statism is incompatible with traditional liberalism, whether they try to workaround the issue with terms like "social liberal" or not. Yeah this thread, again, reached the point where kids are throwing stuff at each other... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Not over, but in hibernation. On Tuesday I wrote a column calling for mainstream Republicans to get in there and fight for their party. The very same day, Snowe decides to call it quits. Shows my influence. There’s no way the Republicans can continue to drift inevitably into a protest movement, though. The electorate has moved right, but not that far right. Here’s what I think may happen. Romney gets the nomination and is defeated. Republicans decide they are sick of nominating “moderates” and next time they go haywire. Then the party gets really crushed and sanity returns. Source | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
There's only two viable Republican candidates left. And I have to ask: Poll: Who would you vote for as the president? Obama (16) Santorum (4) Romney (1) Fuck this shit, I'm not voting. (1) 22 total votes Your vote: Who would you vote for as the president? (Vote): Romney | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Bachman. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8578 Posts
On March 05 2012 18:19 Defacer wrote: Alright, There's only two viable Republican candidates left. And I have to ask: Poll: Who would you vote for as the president? Obama (16) Santorum (4) Romney (1) Fuck this shit, I'm not voting. (1) 22 total votes Your vote: Who would you vote for as the president? (Vote): Romney I know there´s a huge urge to foresee who is most probably to win the election... But isn´t it too early? The campaigns of the ACTUAL candidates haven´t even started yet. ANYTHING can still happen. Yes, to date Republicans are in a very bad position, and most probably, if tomorrow was election day - Obama would take it - but in politics there are other rules in place than "common sense" or actual facts... | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
On March 05 2012 18:40 Doublemint wrote: I know there´s a huge urge to foresee who is most probably to win the election... But isn´t it too early? The campaigns of the ACTUAL candidates haven´t even started yet. ANYTHING can still happen. Yes, to date Republicans are in a very bad position, and most probably, if tomorrow was election day - Obama would take it - but in politics there are other rules in place than "common sense" or actual facts... By now the GOP candidates have dug such a deep hole for themselves that they should be hoping they pissed off God enough for another great flood so they atleast float out again. Yes, it is way early to call it, and this forum is hardly representative to the american people, but what harm is there in getting this poll up rather than debating the semantics of who is liberal, conservative, progressive or democratic? | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
BSL Team Wars
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs BeSt
Wardi Open
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Bisu vs Larva
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
