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

What the difference? Which Side Are YOU On?

tlIjMJBSnRE

Liberals are pro free speech and stuff like that. At least they are supposed to be. They don't want to run away from ideas. They also don't label anyone who disagrees with them alt right.

The left are not pro free speech, they are snowflakes, will not hesitate to label anyone who disagrees with them alt right or racist or a nazi. They love identity politics and playing the victim. And like in most cults: diversity of thought is frowned upon.

Thinking for yourself is not a true value of the Leftist Mind Think.

Liberal.

Are you sure? Maybe you should actually watch the video.

Which part of the video helped you to make up your mind?

How does that matter in the larger scheme of things?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
How does that matter in the larger scheme of things?
Not sure if I understand what you mean by that.

I have some liberal views, some conservative right views and some left views are anyone honest all one thing.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Not sure if I understand what you mean by that.

In point to what the vid said about how the Left views Nationalism.

Originally posted by Flyattractor

In point to what the vid said about how the Left views Nationalism.
Oh. I certainly believe in nation-states and their right to protect their borders.

Liberals believe in individual rights. The basis of liberal theory is that people have an inalienable right to life, liberty and property, and that a social contract is formed as a nation with a government that is given money and authority in order to protect people's rights. You have classical liberals, such as me, who are economically right wing and aren't really a fan of either government policies to redistribute wealth (and are thus economically right-wing) or policies restricting people's social liberty further than not allowing them to violate other people's rights. You have constitutional conservatives in the US who are another form of liberal because the constitution is ultimately a document based on liberal values, though at times they'll be in favor of policy that has been enshrined for a long time that restricts social liberty, such as weed prohibition. Then you have social liberals who are generally center-left, the difference between them and classical liberals being that social liberals believe the government should pass policies to allocate taxpayer money or government programs to assist the people at the bottom of society, though they still believe in property rights and that the economy should be a capitalist one with some government intervention. All three of these types of people could qualify as different types of liberals, because all three of these groups believe the government should primarily exist to protect the individual and their rights, and fundamentally view people as individuals.

There are some positions you could argue for either side of based on liberal principles, such as abortion, you could make the argument from liberal principle that the government has no business involving itself in that decision because of a woman's right to liberty, or conversely you could argue from a liberal point of principle that the fetus has a right to life and that it is justified on liberal principle for the government to pass legislation preventing the termination of life. Or on immigration policy you could argue from liberal principles that it should be looser in order to grant people more liberty to immigrate, or you could argue from liberal principles that it should be tighter on the basis of social contract theory and suggest that the government has much more of a responsibility to its own citizens than foreign non-citizens.

The left is also a decently broad spectrum ranging economically from being a center-left person who supports a primarily capitalist economy with some social programs, to being a Bernie Sanders-esque social democrat who believes that the government should pass a degree of social programs beyond the point of trying to address poverty and ensure people survive and instead to the point of trying to redistribute wealth because "some people have too much", to being a total marxist who does not believe in property rights at all and thinks we should equalize wealth within a society. Socially, the attitudes can range from fairly unwavering support for the social liberty of an individual to act without government interference on things like speech or drugs etc. and who believe people should be judged as individuals and treated as individuals, to those with some progressive leanings who think we need to do more as a society to address racism and sexism but still wouldn't dream of judging someone or treating them differently under the law based on their group identity or restricting their free speech, to full blown SJWs who believe in judging people based on their identity group, passing corporate and legal policies discriminating in favor of "diversity", and shutting down or legally restricting speech they find offensive.

There is overlap between leftists and liberals in the form of social liberals, who are economically left-wing but still believe in capitalism and social liberty and freedom of speech and individualism, and those are the leftists whose views I can respect even if I disagree with them economically to an extent. I may not agree with social liberals economically, but I can respect the altruistic motivation of trying to address poverty with government policy. Economically when it goes past being center-left or moderately left-wing to being middle left or far left, or in other words when it goes beyond the point of wanting to address poverty to being envious of wealthier people and holding marxist sympathies or anticapitalist sentiment, that's the point economically when I could no longer call a left-winger a liberal. Socially, when a left-winger thinks people should be judged or held to different legal or corporate standards based on their identity group, or that ideas they don't like should be censored, or that freedom of speech should be infringed upon by the government, that is the point socially where I couldn't call a left-winger a liberal.

That's just my two cents.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not synonymous. I myself as a classical liberal and someone who considers John Locke their favorite political philosopher strongly believe in liberal values and principles, and I'm fine with genuine social liberals being referred to as liberals, but the term liberal is an inappropriate term to apply to marxists, marxist sympathizers, or SJWs.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Liberals believe in individual rights. The basis of liberal theory is that people have an inalienable right to life, liberty and property, and that a social contract is formed as a nation with a government that is given money and authority in order to protect people's rights. You have classical liberals, such as me, who are economically right wing and aren't really a fan of either government policies to redistribute wealth (and are thus economically right-wing) or policies restricting people's social liberty further than not allowing them to violate other people's rights. You have constitutional conservatives in the US who are another form of liberal because the constitution is ultimately a document based on liberal values, though at times they'll be in favor of policy that has been enshrined for a long time that restricts social liberty, such as weed prohibition. Then you have social liberals who are generally center-left, the difference between them and classical liberals being that social liberals believe the government should pass policies to allocate taxpayer money or government programs to assist the people at the bottom of society, though they still believe in property rights and that the economy should be a capitalist one with some government intervention. All three of these types of people could qualify as different types of liberals, because all three of these groups believe the government should primarily exist to protect the individual and their rights, and fundamentally view people as individuals.

There are some positions you could argue for either side of based on liberal principles, such as abortion, you could make the argument from liberal principle that the government has no business involving itself in that decision because of a woman's right to liberty, or conversely you could argue from a liberal point of principle that the fetus has a right to life and that it is justified on liberal principle for the government to pass legislation preventing the termination of life. Or on immigration policy you could argue from liberal principles that it should be looser in order to grant people more liberty to immigrate, or you could argue from liberal principles that it should be tighter on the basis of social contract theory and suggest that the government has much more of a responsibility to its own citizens than foreign non-citizens.

The left is also a decently broad spectrum ranging economically from being a center-left person who supports a primarily capitalist economy with some social programs, to being a Bernie Sanders-esque social democrat who believes that the government should pass a degree of social programs beyond the point of trying to address poverty and ensure people survive and instead to the point of trying to redistribute wealth because "some people have too much", to being a total marxist who does not believe in property rights at all and thinks we should equalize wealth within a society. Socially, the attitudes can range from fairly unwavering support for the social liberty of an individual to act without government interference on things like speech or drugs etc. and who believe people should be judged as individuals and treated as individuals, to those with some progressive leanings who think we need to do more as a society to address racism and sexism but still wouldn't dream of judging someone or treating them differently under the law based on their group identity or restricting their free speech, to full blown SJWs who believe in judging people based on their identity group, passing corporate and legal policies discriminating in favor of "diversity", and shutting down or legally restricting speech they find offensive.

There is overlap between leftists and liberals in the form of social liberals, who are economically left-wing but still believe in capitalism and social liberty and freedom of speech and individualism, and those are the leftists whose views I can respect even if I disagree with them economically to an extent. I may not agree with social liberals economically, but I can respect the altruistic motivation of trying to address poverty with government policy. Economically when it goes past being center-left or moderately left-wing to being middle left or far left, or in other words when it goes beyond the point of wanting to address poverty to being envious of wealthier people and holding marxist sympathies or anticapitalist sentiment, that's the point economically when I could no longer call a left-winger a liberal. Socially, when a left-winger thinks people should be judged or held to different legal or corporate standards based on their identity group, or that ideas they don't like should be censored, or that freedom of speech should be infringed upon by the government, that is the point socially where I couldn't call a left-winger a liberal.

That's just my two cents.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not synonymous. I myself as a classical liberal and someone who considers John Locke their favorite political philosopher strongly believe in liberal values and principles, and I'm fine with genuine social liberals being referred to as liberals, but the term liberal is an inappropriate term to apply to marxists, marxist sympathizers, or SJWs. Newsflash: You're not liberal DMB... Please capitalise Marxist ffs.

Using the terms Marxists/SJW unironically. facepalm2

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Newsflash: You're not liberal DMB...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=651971&pagenumber=1#post16567985

Contrary to popular belief you don't have to be economically left-wing to be a liberal.

According to Political compass test I'm

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46


https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-3.25&soc=-2.46

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I have some liberal views, some conservative right views and some left views are anyone honest all one thing.


I am the same.


Best way to sum me up is a true centrist. I was at a -0.5, -1.44 on this test:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-0.5&soc=-1.44



That puts me very close to central but still enough of a libertarian leaning that I can't quite be a perfect centrist.

Originally posted by Silent Master
According to Political compass test I'm

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46


https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-3.25&soc=-2.46

Ha, we are close to the same. My dot is just a bit closer to the center but we lean the same.

Makes sense, I tend to agree with you more often than some of the other people on the board.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.0&soc=1.13

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-6.0&soc=1.13

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-1.88&soc=-4.51

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

Never thought of myself as an authoritarian lefty.

The questions are pretty flawed though. Quite a few fall between agree/disagree..

I wouldn't say one square into the authoritarian sphere makes you authoritarian. Additionally, since the left-right axis pertains to economics, which the quiz didn't really delve deep into, I wouldn't say it's all that reliable of a result.

I didn't like their always/never questions either.

Those of my views which I would not want enforced top down by law should not have any bearing on where I stand politically.

I think by saying it's "gone too far," they meant to imply that "therefore it requires intervention." As for the art thing, maybe it has to do with something about policy in public education?

Astrology = hippies. Hippies = left wing.

Nope. Hippies are just "Liberal".

You're liberal.

Nah. Hippies would just be all "Whatever Man" and then go off and get high. I would gladly set fire to your gazebo and run over your cat ....and then go get high.

My cat would kick your ass so badly.

Well I guess we now know who is the Real ....Puddy Tat in your household....

Every cat runs their household.

Tell that to Tom from Tom & Jerry.

Originally posted by samhain
Tell that to Tom from Tom & Jerry.
That poor bastard is so cucked.

Originally posted by BackFire
My cat would kick your ass so badly. My niece's Rabbit would kick his ass so badly, this is Fly BF.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am the same.


Best way to sum me up is a true centrist. I was at a -0.5, -1.44 on this test:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-0.5&soc=-1.44



That puts me very close to central but still enough of a libertarian leaning that I can't quite be a perfect centrist.

From what I remember about where my dot was it was just a little bit lower than where yours is.