• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Understanding the Liberal Mindset

smartcooky

Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
28,999
Location
Nelson, New Zealand
Liberal Progressives (Lib-Progs) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. Lib-Progs have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the oppressors) versus the marginalized groups (the victims). In the Lib-Prog world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, and the Lib-Progs are here equalize everyone and make everything alright. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the Liberal Progressive mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.

Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset.
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished.

There is nothing that demonstrates how the Lib-Prog mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. British Commentator Melanie Phillips currently writes on social issues for The Times and The Jerusalem Post from a socially conservative perspective.

(Lib-Progs will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss her as a far-right racist without ever reading anything she has written or hearing anything she has to say)

There is a transcript below the link for those who are allergic to YouTube videos.


TRANSCRIPT​
The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's Liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself "I'm a good person because I'm Liberal - I'm Liberal because I'm a good person" which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man,
Edited by jimbob: 
snipped for rule 4
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Liberal" is very broad. I'd be called a liberal 40 years ago. Probably not anymore. But the far-left has always hated the West and allied itself with groups and ideologies that also hate the West. Israel is a proxy for the West. So any group that opposes the West will be sacralized by the far-left, and their behavior excused no matter how atrocious.
 
Norman Alexander said:
That's a lot of words. Do they pay you by the sentence? Because I stopped reading after the first one.
Click to expand...
Jesus H. Christ Norman. My part of the post was just over a dozen lines. If you'd bothered reading more than just a few of them you would have found that the whole post BELOW the video was a transcript of the video, which I only put there for the benefit of the chronically video averse among us.
 
Trausti said:
"Liberal" is very broad. I'd be called a liberal 40 years ago. Probably not anymore. But the far-left has always hated the West and allied itself with groups and ideologies that also hate the West. Israel is a proxy for the West. So any group that opposes the West will be sacralized by the far-left, and their behavior excused no matter how atrocious.
Click to expand...
Far left and liberal are not the same politically. That's why in the UK the liberal party has been able to form in effect coalition governments with both left and right parties.

Traditionally on the economic side liberals will find commonalities with the right, on individual rights they will find commonalities with the left. (That doesn't make them centralists.)
 
smartcooky said:
Jesus H. Christ Norman. My part of the post was just over a dozen lines. If you'd bothered reading more than just a few of them you would have found that the whole post BELOW the video was a transcript of the video, which I only put there for the benefit of the chronically video averse among us.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like I said, I stopped after the first one because it is false. Not much point from there.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, putting a chunk.of the political spectrum in black and white kind of ignores all the individuals that possibly are included. No group is that cohesive in thought and plan.
I did read it.
 
smartcooky said:
Liberal Progressives (Lib-Progs) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. Lib-Progs have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the oppressors) versus the marginalized groups (the victims). In the Lib-Prog world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, and the Lib-Progs are here equalize everyone and make everything alright. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the Liberal Progressive mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.

Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset.
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished.

There is nothing that demonstrates how the Lib-Prog mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. British Commentator Melanie Phillips currently writes on social issues for The Times and The Jerusalem Post from a socially conservative perspective.

(Lib-Progs will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss her as a far-right racist without ever reading anything she has written or hearing anything she has to say)

There is a transcript below the link for those who are allergic to YouTube videos.


TRANSCRIPT​
The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's Liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself "I'm a good person because I'm Liberal - I'm Liberal because I'm a good person" which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man,
Edited by jimbob: 
snipped for rule 4
Click to expand...
Isn't it great when someone posts a ridiculous strawman pulled out of their ass? Especially when they use vague generalizations.

I'm a Liberal. I'm a progressive. I'm also a conservative. A capitalist and a socialist. If that all sounds contradictory, it generally is. But aye there's the rub. General terms are nonsensical.

This rant paints with a broad brush and then argues that it applies to specific nuanced issues. The Middle East and Israel is a cluster ◊◊◊◊. And it has been all of my life. As well as all of my father's life. And it starts with the parties of God. The batcrap crazy Muslims fighting for their stupid moronic prophet. Then you have the insane American preachers using all their political might helping the Jews steal as much of Muslim's land so they can bring on the second coming.

Here's what the great Christopher Hitchens had to say about Israel and Zionism.
Was Hitchens a liberal? Yes. He described himself as one. But he also criticized Clinton, supported George W. Bush and the Iraq War.

Nothing is more absurd and dishonest than arguing as Smartcooky is in his post. But hey don't let that get in your way. Right?
 
Last edited:
Cooky's post is remarkably, examples of four different fallacies at the same time. Give him credit as it is hard to whiff four times at one pitch.

My logic professor would love this.
.
One, it is a strawman.
Two, it is filled with non-sequitors.
Three, it applies the general to the specific.
and
Four, applies the specific to the general.
 
Olmstead said:
I'm a liberal progressive because I can feel compassion for the victims on both sides of the conflict, but you can probably come up with a smart-alecky essay on that attitude as well.
Click to expand...
I'm a liberal progressive because I believe in the universality of human rights regardless of nationality, religion, gender, sexuality, income, colour of skin, language, or politics.
 
I'm a Liberal Progressive because I have compassion for others. And I understand that our starting position in the rat race that is life is different for us all. I believe in John Rawls philosophy.
 
I've had arguments on the board in the past that seemed to me to amount to saying that you can't run a society if you try to accomodate the people who are at the ends of whatever bell curve of traits, those who don't fit their expected stereotype.

So what if 1% of x are a different way, they should be ignored because it's too wasteful/dangerous/etc to give every x the chance to see whether they are already a different way or would like to be a different way if they tried it. If some particular x cares that much it's up to them to try going against the grain. Things weren't too hard for (famous x) were they?!

This has been an argument against DEI style efforts to get more x into various programs they are not typically encouraged to try and/or are underrepresented in.

It's probably my biggest personal baseline disagreement with the right wing mindset, and it seems to be relevant to the 'oh no, muslims' argument in that it doesn't seem to matter how many muslims aren't misogynist criminals and don't want to take over your country and sharia you into the stone age, because if you try to accomodate the people who don't fit the stereotype, your society will be destroyed.

I do see the point about worrying about people who do want to eff up your way of life getting a voting majority going in your country but uh... so far, for me, that hasn't been the muslims
 
Last edited:
I've been seeing this argument a lot recently:

smartcooky said:
They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys.
Click to expand...
It seems to be the latest low blow in the culture war, and I've thought about it a fair bit.

I've come to the conclusion over the course of my now 56 years on this planet that compassion and empathy for others is a moral good. Human rights are a moral good. Kindness to those less fortunate is a moral good. Those people who don't recognise this, who don't show kindness, empathy, and compassion to all human beings, are not morally good people. They cannot be. There are some things that good people can disagree on, but this isn't one of them.

I think this is a truth that is as close to being objective as any truth can be: all human lives have intrinsic value. All human beings by virtue of their existence deserve a baseline level of respect. If someone cannot respect them for their existence alone, then that person is not a morally good person.

I'm sorry if this moral stance of mine makes anyone uncomfortable. And I'm sorry that you have to frame it as "anyone who doesn't think like me is a bad guy". I don't think that is particularly fair or thoughtful. It shows neither empathy nor kindness. It is antagonistic and aggressive. I don't want to fight anyone, and I would rather that they did not pick fights with me. We can't make the world a better place for everyone's children if we're always picking fights.

So yes, to a certain extent I think that the quote above is basically correct, though I think it is articulated in a way that is intended to provoke discord and distrust. I would like to help people become more morally good, as I think that too is a moral good, but I can't while they're being deliberately provocative.
 
arthwollipot said:
I've come to the conclusion over the course of my now 56 years on this planet that compassion and empathy for others is a moral good. Human rights are a moral good. Kindness to those less fortunate is a moral good. Those people who don't recognise this, who don't show kindness, empathy, and compassion to all human beings, are not morally good people. They cannot be. There are some things that good people can disagree on, but this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
This is all very wonderful. But what do you do when others don't share this viewpoint and nonetheless exploit your compassion and empathy? Do you think it's virtuous to be a sucker?
 
arthwollipot said:
I've been seeing this argument a lot recently:


It seems to be the latest low blow in the culture war, and I've thought about it a fair bit.

I've come to the conclusion over the course of my now 56 years on this planet that compassion and empathy for others is a moral good. Human rights are a moral good. Kindness to those less fortunate is a moral good. Those people who don't recognise this, who don't show kindness, empathy, and compassion to all human beings, are not morally good people. They cannot be. There are some things that good people can disagree on, but this isn't one of them.

I think this is a truth that is as close to being objective as any truth can be: all human lives have intrinsic value. All human beings by virtue of their existence deserve a baseline level of respect. If someone cannot respect them for their existence alone, then that person is not a morally good person.

I'm sorry if this moral stance of mine makes anyone uncomfortable. And I'm sorry that you have to frame it as "anyone who doesn't think like me is a bad guy". I don't think that is particularly fair or thoughtful. It shows neither empathy nor kindness. It is antagonistic and aggressive. I don't want to fight anyone, and I would rather that they did not pick fights with me. We can't make the world a better place for everyone's children if we're always picking fights.

So yes, to a certain extent I think that the quote above is basically correct, though I think it is articulated in a way that is intended to provoke discord and distrust. I would like to help people become more morally good, as I think that too is a moral good, but I can't while they're being deliberately provocative.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I've come to a similar principle: I believe that all the actual evil of which humanity is capable is just forms of selfishness.
 
3point14 said:
I like the way one can pin down the entire worldview of a large section of society simply by labelling them, then argue against the perception of their worldview without having any contestation.
Click to expand...

8enotto said:
Yeah, putting a chunk.of the political spectrum in black and white kind of ignores all the individuals that possibly are included. No group is that cohesive in thought and plan.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
Isn't it great when someone posts a ridiculous strawman pulled out of their ass? Especially when they use vague generalizations.
Click to expand...

Gawdzilla Sama said:
Cookie cutter stereotypes are excellent for avoiding having to think about what one is saying and having to decide if any of it is actually true. Lazy people talk in bumperstickers. Stupid people ask someone to read the bumpersticker to them.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that the people that routinely label all conservatives as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., get upset when someone applies labels and stereotypes on them.
 
Trausti said:
Maybe both. An oft critique of modern progressives is that they exhibit suicidal empathy.
Click to expand...
There is nothing suicidal about empathy. The understanding that we are all in this together. That everything isn't a zero sum game. That kindness and civility is important. In 50 years of being involved in politics I have only seen a few occasions where Republicans actually promoted any policies that were empathetic to anyone other than the wealthy.

If after WW2, rebuilding Europe and Japan to the degree that the US did wasn't based on empathy I don't know what is. If creating the GI Bill and sending soldiers to college wasn't empathetic I don't know what is. America treated POWs far better than any other country during WW2. If that wasn't based on empathy, I don't know what is.

And NONE of these acts were suicidal. Neither is helping the poor, the infirm, the immigrant, or minorities. My experience in life is that selfishness offers only short term gains. But selflessness pays dividends for life.
 
Last edited:
427 Cobra said:
I find it fascinating that the people that routinely label all conservatives as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., get upset when someone applies labels and stereotypes on them.
Click to expand...
I don't label all conservatives as those things. Only the ones that are. Trump is ALL of those things. But I don't consider Trump a conservative.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm a Liberal. I'm a progressive. I'm also a conservative. A capitalist and a socialist. If that all sounds contradictory, it generally is. But aye there's the rub. General terms are nonsensical.

This rant paints with a broad brush and then argues that it applies to specific nuanced issues. The Middle East and Israel is a cluster ◊◊◊◊. And it has been all of my life. As well as all of my father's life. And it starts with the parties of God. The batcrap crazy Muslims fighting for their stupid moronic prophet. Then you have the insane American preachers using all their political might helping the Jews steal as much of Muslim's land so they can bring on the second coming.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I call them Blanket Statements instead (or BS), and as anyone who has more than two brain cells to rub together knows that blanket statements are usually (if not always) based on lies, misinformation, or mischaracterizations.

And before anyone complains that my use of "Maga Weirdoes" is BS, my definition of MW (which I've defined at least a couple times in this forum) is anyone who believes (and still believes) everything that the fat clown says is a fact and not a lie.


ETA: And if anyone thinks that MWs don't exist, just go to any MSN or Fox forum and you'll find lots of them.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Really? That's news to me. They don't even pretend to be in favor of free speech.
Click to expand...
If I were a mod, I would not ban you for saying this.

You are free to say all the immoral disgusting things you want, as long as you don't cross over into hate speech and incitement to violence. I may think some of the things you say are morally repugnant, but I do not want the government to forbid you from saying them.

Can you give any example where I have said that your speech should be banned? I don't think you can.

Remember, the right to free speech only means that the government can't put you in jail for saying things (except, as I said, hate speech and incitement to violence). It doesn't insulate you from the social consequences of what you say.
 
jt512 said:
Really? That's news to me. They don't even pretend to be in favor of free speech.
Click to expand...

The reason I ask is because your use of the word "they" infers that you think ALL liberal/progressives are pretending to be in favor of free speech, and that is not only a blanket statement but also false, egregious, ignorant, and insulting.

I know this because even though I'm a registered republican, I also consider myself a liberal/progressive, and I believe in free speech, and that proves your blanket statement is false.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
This is all very wonderful. But what do you do when others don't share this viewpoint and nonetheless exploit your compassion and empathy? Do you think it's virtuous to be a sucker?
Click to expand...
This is another question that is framed in a spirit of hostility. I have never been harmed because I showed compassion and empathy. I have, however, been mocked.
 
Trausti said:
This is all very wonderful. But what do you do when others don't share this viewpoint and nonetheless exploit your compassion and empathy? Do you think it's virtuous to be a sucker?
Click to expand...
You generalise too much. It is possible to think differently about some Muslims/poor/whatever who are not exploiting you, and those Muslims/poor/whatever who try to exploit you. You don't have to be a sucker in order to show compassion and empathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom