Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

what values make you want to be a liberal or progressive?

I think the reasoning behind this question is flawed.

I personally don't really care about the labels "liberal" or "progressive." My positions are positions that are consistent with my ethical beliefs, that's it. **** ideology.

Empathy.

Generally speaking ...

1. Don't label me. Some issues I feel one way about, other things another way. So let's discuss issues, then if someone cares, s/he can label where I stand on that issue.

2. It seems almost as if labeling a person legitimizes attacks upon that person, that political affiliation is the last acceptable bastion of abject prejudice.

3. I prefer to discuss issues in terms of Rights and Responsibilities, not Liberal vs Conservative.

Originally posted by Raisen
what values make you want to be a liberal or progressive?


Being it's more practical. Different people working together long-run works better. Not holding people's skin color, gender, or sexuality against them only makes sense, it's really quite pointless all the social barriers that have been put up. People from other cultures often has useful alternate points of view. Making peace with other countries has historically resulted in more profit for us.

Economically, well, *that's* super easy, austerity regularly causes economic crashes to get worse while stimulus to get better. Economics is not a zero-sum game and ironically, treating it like it is usually costs money.

Health care, universe health care works everywhere it's tried...



In short, cold, hard numbers. Most of this stuff makes good numbers go up, bad numbers go down, or both.

You're enemies name you. Let them name them however it fits their agenda, it will not change the hard truth of their defeat.

I believe in humanity's evolution rather than its stagnation.

Originally posted by Q99
Being it's more practical. Different people working together long-run works better. Not holding people's skin color, gender, or sexuality against them only makes sense, it's really quite pointless all the social barriers that have been put up. People from other cultures often has useful alternate points of view. Making peace with other countries has historically resulted in more profit for us.

Economically, well, *that's* super easy, austerity regularly causes economic crashes to get worse while stimulus to get better. Economics is not a zero-sum game and ironically, treating it like it is usually costs money.

Health care, universe health care works everywhere it's tried...



In short, cold, hard numbers. Most of this stuff makes good numbers go up, bad numbers go down, or both.

wait, are you implying that people who aren't liberal are racist and sexist.

can anybody explain why my many faces of hillary thread got closed. there are tons of other stupid threads that are similar and don't get closed. there are **** and ass threads etc yet a somewhat negative thread about a progressive gets closed. there are tons of negative conservative threads.
please be objective and see this for what it is

I agree with some stuff both sides do and do not agree with other things both sides do. I find it generally unwise to throw yourself totally behind one side no matter what.

Originally posted by Raisen
can anybody explain why my many faces of hillary thread got closed. there are tons of other stupid threads that are similar and don't get closed. there are **** and ass threads etc yet a somewhat negative thread about a progressive gets closed. there are tons of negative conservative threads.
please be objective and see this for what it is

What threads in the GDF are similarly negative towards conservatives?

If you feel they should be closed you should report them, so the mods can look at them. And if you want to argue for your thread you can generally PM mods and talk to them.

The root of conservative is conserve. Conservatives seek to preserve or maintain the status quo.

The root of progressive is progress. Progressives seek to advance or improve the status quo.

The difference between the conservatives and progressives is how they view the state of affairs.

Conservatives see social and political institutions as idyllic, and perceive attempts to change them as attacks on those institutions.

Progressive see those same institutions as flawed, and see areas for improvement.

Bill Maher explains it this way:

" have this nostalgia for this America they think was stolen from them that used to be, that was better. It's really the 1950s, okay? That's what they think was Shangri La.

You know, what they never get is that it's kind of insulting to a lot of Americans to pine for this era, because it wasn't that good for a lot of people. It was good if you were a white man. It wasn't that good if you were Mexican, or black, or Jewish, or disabled, or gay, or a woman."

Yeah I'd very much urge everyone to watch the episode of Penn and Teller Bullshit about the "Good Ol Days". Which really..weren't good at all.

Ignoring all the horrible-ness just look at the blandness of periods like the 1950's. It really is depressing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The root of conservative is conserve. Conservatives seek to preserve or maintain the status quo.

The root of progressive is progress. Progressives seek to advance or improve the status quo.

The difference between the conservatives and progressives is how they view the state of affairs.

Conservatives see social and political institutions as idyllic, and perceive attempts to change them as attacks on those institutions.

Progressive see those same institutions as flawed, and see areas for improvement.

Bill Maher explains it this way:

" have this nostalgia for this America they think was stolen from them that used to be, that was better. It's really the 1950s, okay? That's what they think was Shangri La.

You know, what they never get is that it's kind of insulting to a lot of Americans to pine for this era, because it wasn't that good for a lot of people. It was good if you were a white man. It wasn't that good if you were Mexican, or black, or Jewish, or disabled, or gay, or a woman."

This is US politics you are talking about of course. Elsewhere, conservative politics tends to be progressive, if you can wrap your head around that. Progressive conservatism is a big ideology in the UK and Canada, as are equivalents in Europe.

It;s not always wise to take political terms literally. Frankly, the way the US has distorted the term 'liberal' over time is shocking.

To be honest, most of the Democrats in the US would fit somewhere in European conservative parties. Definitely in Germany.

A lot of the things that seem left in the US that Democrats argue for are just generally accepted by all mainstream parties in Europe.

I think the UK has a somewhat more right-wing conservative party than Germany though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the UK has a somewhat more right-wing conservative party than Germany though.

The UK Conservative party is a big beast- it contains progressives and status-quoists alike.

For example- much as I know you don't like David Cameron, remember that he was the one who spearheaded equality for gay marriage in the UK, even at the cost of great dissent within his own party. DC is a declared progressive-conservative, and such a change can only be called a progressive one.

UK Conservatives tend to be more interested in traditions than never changing anything,

Yeah, I don't disagree with that, I don't think the label progressive makes much sense, definitely not in Europe. The mainstream parties are all fighting for change, though in different directions (in Germany at least in very slightly different directions imo, neither the conservative not social democratic party seem to have huge ideological difference here).

My dislike for Cameron has more to do with things like the increase in university tuition, his stance towards the EU, government surveillance and the GCHQ, the refugee crisis, etc.

Part of the reason why it seems to me like the politics in the UK are more right wing, is also that I don't really think Labour was particularly left leaning during its latest time in charge either.

If you dislike Cameron for his EU stance, do I assume you dislike most UK politicians? He's fighting like crazy to stay in it rather tha leave, which is where a lot of the politics is. Corbyn, for example, is no fan of the EU.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you dislike Cameron for his EU stance, do I assume you dislike most UK politicians? He's fighting like crazy to stay in it rather tha leave, which is where a lot of the politics is. Corbyn, for example, is no fan of the EU.

Yeah, I was going to add the caveat that obviously dislike of the EU is very common in the UK generally (and I think there's many good points to dislike and want to fix about the EU anyways). And yeah, I dislike that part regardless of party affiliation, but for me it's obviously about the whole of his stances. If Cameron was in line with my political preferences and only diverged on the EU I'd love him.

Cuz conservatism is just plain stupid.

If we were all conservative we will be still be hunting gathering and at the most living in caves.

Thankfully we have people who like to peogress on everything and the challenge the status quo.

I laugh at conservatism and how illogical it is.

By conservatism standards people should not even use the internet to express ideas or post in community forums. They should be expressing their ideas the old fashion way, by telling stories in front of the campfire.

Thankfully every new young generation likes to challenge the status quo and that is why civilization flourishes, when you rob the new generations of that hunger for change then you have countries like North Korea and Iran stuck in the past

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Cuz conservatism is just plain stupid.
Or... cuz iberalism is just plain stupid.

Originally posted by Stigma
Or... cuz iberalism is just plain stupid.
And the rest you didn't read? Or just didn't play in your game?

Which you can't deny. Conservatism is bound to fail. Is like a law of nature.

Even you as conservative as you might be now you will be consider progresive in the past

Let's play games

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
And the rest you didn't read? Or just didn't play in your game?

Which you can't deny. Conservatism is bound to fail. Is like a law of nature.

Even you as conservative as you might be now you will be consider progresive in the past
Of course I did not coz an argument that starts with "the other side is stupid" is dangerously close to an epic fail itself.


Eh, anyways everyone knows liberalism is a fail ideology.Its proponents like to live in a fantasy land. TBH it's self evident how full of fail liberalism is. Just look at the world. Even if you think you're a progressive now, in the past you'd be considered a regressive with an inclination for dictatorship.

Taste of your own medicine. Enjoy.

Originally posted by Stigma
Of course I did not coz an argument that starts with "the other side is stupid" is dangerously close to an epic fail itself.


Eh, anyways everyone knows liberalism is a fail ideology.Its proponents like to live in a fantasy land. TBH it's self evident how full of fail liberalism is. Just look at the world. Even if you think you're a progressive now, in the past you'd be considered a regressive with an inclination for dictatorship.

Taste of your own medicine. Enjoy. List the policies that constitute the "liberal" ideology.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
List the policies that constitute the "liberal" ideology.
You don't know them? How come you are a liberal, then? ;-)

I'd be happy if you post a list.


On a side note, I've just finished Eric Foner's Story of American Freedom. Do not make me go medieval on your @ss...
Armed with sources like that I can do that easily.

And yet you haven't.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
And yet you haven't.
Oh man you're lame

I didn't know I have to conform to your wishes lol. If you want post the list, why not. It would be easier to pick it apart using actual historical science like Foner's, Hofstadter's or Hackett's books as a source.

I am sure you are ignorant of that, as American libersls in general tend to be ignorant on a subject of political ideologies and history of their own nation ;-)

Tzeentch has a point though. Why talk about your grandiose ability to beat liberal arguments and their ideology, instead of just doing it?

I think that every rational person here knows that liberalism is a mental disorder.

I've studied mental disorders and can confirm this is true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tzeentch has a point though. Why talk about your grandiose ability to beat liberal arguments and their ideology, instead of just doing it?
No, he has no point. He wants to make a list. Lol

But I might have been to harsh towards him, though.

TBH it's not so much an argument on my part as it is objective historic truth that liberalism of the 1800s was forfeited and replaced with an ideology that is close to socialism. Concentration of power is the opposite if what the Founding fathers wanted for the US to be


In other words, modern conservatives have more in common with Jefferson and the original thought of progressivism (moving away from centralized governments and monarchy) than modern liberals (who move towards centralized government).

To conserve means to take care of the values that Founding Fathers proposed and which were progressive.

To be a progressive nowadays is to be regressive and abbabdon these principles.

Irony of history.

Originally posted by Stigma
No, he has no point. He wants to make a list. Lol

He doesn't want to make a list. He wanted you to specify what you count as "liberal policies", to clarify a point you made.

Originally posted by Stigma
But I might have been to harsh towards him, though.

TBH it's not so much an argument on my part as it is objective historic truth that liberalism of the 1800s was forfeited and replaced with an ideology that is close to socialism. Concentration of power is the opposite if what the Founding fathers wanted for the US to be


In other words, modern conservatives have more in common with Jefferson and the original thought of progressivism (moving away from centralized governments and monarchy) than modern liberals (who move towards centralized government).

To conserve means to take care of the values that Founding Fathers proposed and which were progressive.

To be a progressive nowadays is to be regressive and abbabdon these principles.

Irony of history.

I don't think regressive is the right word. Progressives in the US do not want to return to monarchy. Taking a simplification of conservatives and progressives that is something that will always happen. In simple terms, as it is used in the US conservatives are people that have chosen a point in time at which they want progress halted. So the people that got to that point will have been progressives. In that view progressives want to move society to a new state which they judge as better, conservatives want to preserve a state they consider ideal.

However like Ush hinted at, the conservative - progressive - liberal way of categorising is far too simplistic to actually map the political beliefs of people.

Originally posted by Stigma
Oh man you're lame

I didn't know I have to conform to your wishes lol. If you want post the list, why not. It would be easier to pick it apart using actual historical science like Foner's, Hofstadter's or Hackett's books as a source.

I am sure you are ignorant of that, as American libersls in general tend to be ignorant on a subject of political ideologies and history of their own nation ;-)

> asserts that "liberalism" is a failed ideology

> gets defensive when asked to define "liberalism"

Whew lad. Hitchen's razor in full effect.

@ Bardock

I'm reposting part of my response, becasue I cannot edit my post above (some malfunction, I guess).

Originally posted by Bardock42

In simple terms, as it is used in the US conservatives are people that have chosen a point in time at which they want progress halted. So the people that got to that point will have been progressives. In that view progressives want to move society to a new state which they judge as better, conservatives want to preserve a state they consider ideal.
Not really.

Liberalism originally was about liberty and pushing the boundaries of liberty through progress. However, modern liberalism disregards this and pushes in the opposite direction, encroaching on liberties through centralization of power.

In other words, modern liberals regress back to the point where centralized, all-powerful government (ruler) was the problem. To deal with that there was an American Revolution.

Thus, Modern progressives are pushing a backwards agenda.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I accept your concession.

> this is his 7th post that does not back up his claim

Originally posted by Tzeentch
> this is his 7th post that does not back up his claim
My claim that you are an ignorant is confirmed everytime you post in this thread, so there's that

Seriously, it's clear you are not going to contribute much. That's ok. Now go on, play with other kids.

I call it a night. Cheers.

This is the eight post in which Stigma has failed to define "the liberal ideology" that has allegedly failed historically.

Does he actually know what liberalism is? Who knows?

Yeah, tzeentch, stop questioning stigma's rightness.

"Which … was a silly idea of his, given the plethora of policies that constitute liberalism. Nevertheless, if I were to mention one it’d be the one I already stated before:

Modern liberalism is about concentration of power and disregard for individual freedom" --- my post on the previous page.

I'd say perfect definition


Tzeentch. You tried, you failed (not that it was surprising) That's ok.

It's all clear that you are unable to address my points


BTW Thanks Adam, I knew some liberals are intelligent... .oh wait.


Originally posted by Slay
I think that every rational person here knows that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Originally posted by Placidity
I've studied mental disorders and can confirm this is true.

Originally posted by Stigma
"Which … was a silly idea of his, given the plethora of policies that constitute liberalism. And yet, this "plethora of policies that constitute liberalism" didn't stop you from making a blanket assertion about the entire ideology. Try to keep up my son.

Originally posted by Stigma
disregard for individual freedom" Like the freedom to marry who you want?

If the marriage part was a jab at gay civic unions it should be noted that communist states persecuted homosexuals.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
And yet, this "plethora of policies that constitute liberalism" didn't stop you from making a blanket assertion about the entire ideology. Try to keep up

Um, first post of yours when you offer something more than a snip remark and you misconstrue things.... not good at all.

It is a description of facts. And I exlicitly said "one" of many facets of modern liberalism, so I did not attempt to simplify things.


Originally posted by Tzeentch
my son. That's not true! That's impossible!

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Like the freedom to marry who you want?
Like freedom to carry guns if you want?

Seriously, one step forward into the right direction and two steps back does not mean you are progressing.

They do one thing good, and them immediatelly jumb to encroach on basic freedoms that founded the US.

Hence, my point that modern liberals are regressives, in fact.



The core issue is this:

The more the public sector expands, the less the private sector can have. The more powerful the government, the less liberty citizens enjoy.

Unfortunately, modern liberlalism hijacked by socialist sentiments is about centralization of power and thus at odds with the spirit of liberty.

Yeah, because marrying whoever you want and carrying as many guns as it's physically possible represent the same danger to society!

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Yeah, because marrying whoever you want and carrying as many guns as it's physically possible represent the same danger to society!

Gay marriage causes hurricanes and earthquakes and tornadoes so yeah they probably do.

Glad to see that Jaden brings a cogent and concise argument to the table, as always. We need more of that around here.

I'm not a republican because I'm gay, so It would kinda be a oxymoron if I became a republican

Originally posted by Jesus McBurger
I'm not a republican because I'm gay, so It would kinda be a oxymoron if I became a republican

Could be a log cabin Republican.

Though I agree, it takes some major cognitive dissonance to be Republican and gay...

Originally posted by jaden101
Gay marriage causes hurricanes and earthquakes and tornadoes so yeah they probably do.

Maybe we can weaponize that.

Originally posted by Slay
Glad to see that Jaden brings a cogent and concise argument to the table, as always. We need more of that around here.

Thanks, buddy

#VoteTrump2016

Originally posted by jaden101
Thanks, buddy

#VoteTrump2016
Hey, as long as David Duke isn't running, Trump is the best option.

YZL3axcwDz8



Sweeden wants to raise taxes to pay for returning ISIS fighters into their country

The guy makes it a point to emphasize 'extreme' in 'extreme liberalism'. Pretty much anything taken to an extreme can be characterized as a mental disorder. And yeah, Sweden has kinda been going off the deep end recently.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/18/stockholm-syndrome-sweden-offers-taxpayer-funded-benefits-to-lure-alienated-jihadists-home/

I agree, but this is the may Europe wants to go. Just look at everything that is going on.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/18/stockholm-syndrome-sweden-offers-taxpayer-funded-benefits-to-lure-alienated-jihadists-home/

I agree, but this is the may Europe wants to go. Just look at everything that is going on.
Well, like I said, Sweden is a joke right now, but the current government won't survive the next election. Support for their right-wing has been on a massive rise in recent years. And no, this is not where most of Europe wants to go. Even other highly liberal Nordic countries are appalled at what's going on in Sweden.

Why is Sweeden acting like a bunch of idiots right now? How can these policies, who on earth would allow this to happen?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why is Sweeden acting like a bunch of idiots right now? How can these policies, who on earth would allow this to happen?
Sweden has leaders who are so convinced in their own enlightenment that they genuinely believe they can do no wrong. This has slowly but surely plunged the country into a some sort of an ultra-liberal twilight zone.

Isn't astner from sweden? Explains everything