The Student Room Group

I get the impression this site is very left wing

Scroll to see replies

Original post by inhuman
Saying things like "I must be the only racist whose sucked on a black cock" is an unpopular opinion? No, it is a ******** headline grabbing phrase that has no basis in "raw data".

You know, I get a lot **** said to me because I personally disagree with the Islamic ideology. I am by no means some liberal cuck. But from my point of view, anyone who would go to the alt-right could not possibly be objective at all.


What's the problem with him saying that? It's a non-issue, and a personal issue. When Milo deals with political and social issues, he is absolutely factual and objective. In plenty of his old debates, he will blow away SJWs who just think they can turn up and debate subjectively, whereas he does his research and learns the facts.
Original post by richpanda
What's the problem with him saying that? It's a non-issue, and a personal issue. When Milo deals with political and social issues, he is absolutely factual and objective. In plenty of his old debates, he will blow away SJWs who just think they can turn up and debate subjectively, whereas he does his research and learns the facts.


Because he is using it exactly to try and make a statement when what he says has no bearing on that statement.

The fact that you think he can say that and in the next breath accuse others of being subjective...no wonder you are a fan.
Original post by richpanda
Stop with the whataboutery, you cuckservative


Prove my point.

Have nice evening.
Original post by Snufkin
Yugoslavia wasn't a particularly diverse country by European standards. Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are ethnically the same people and they all speak the same language (although it has various different names).
Yugoslavia was quite diverse

Serbs are Eastern Orthodox, Croats are Catholic, Bosniaks are both and also Muslim, Kosovars are mostly Muslim, etc etc

History also separated them strongly (Croats were part of the AustroìHungarian Empire until 1918, Serbs were part of the Ottoman Empire then Independent etc etc

Yugoslavia had absolutely no historical identity - it was the product of a few intellectuals, in 1918, who dreamed about a mythical common "Illyrian" identity

best
Reply 124
Original post by SamDrake
As the title says. I have a Theory as to why, it being a website for the millennial generation and as some of you may be aware, the millennial generation has been brainwashed by the liberal/leftist agenda since they were going to primary school. Hence why the younger generation think the way they do - liberal, overly compassionate to bad entities, no boarders, citizens of the world and terrified of offending anyone who isn't white.


Extreme far right checking in!
Original post by richpanda
Because TSR is full of cucks who genuinely can't understand that people have different opinions to them and can't accept objective FACTS.


I thought that what with Brexit and all we have decided that experts and facts are for cucks?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Marked Target
Isn't paying taxes supposed to cover this?


That's the point. Other peoples' money.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
That's the point. Other peoples' money.


Do you not pay taxes?
Original post by Marked Target
Do you not pay taxes?


Not much no (I'm unemployed and have been or on low paid min wage jobs)... Certainly a lot less than Rue. Yet I still get to use roads and mental health stuff on the NHS. Thanks Rue :top:

The "spending other people's money" quib made by people like rue is used to make fun of anyone who wants to use tax to fund services aimed at combating some form of inequality or to provide a public service.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 129
What does this even mean?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mariachi
Yugoslavia was quite diverse

Serbs are Eastern Orthodox, Croats are Catholic, Bosniaks are both and also Muslim, Kosovars are mostly Muslim, etc etc

History also separated them strongly (Croats were part of the AustroìHungarian Empire until 1918, Serbs were part of the Ottoman Empire then Independent etc etc


All true, but nearly all European countries share similar histories and are just as diverse if not more so that Yugoslavia ever was.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Snufkin
All true, but nearly all European countries share similar histoties and are just as diverse if not more so that Yugoslavia ever was.


Similar histories being constant warfare?
Original post by Snufkin
All true, but nearly all European countries share similar histoties and are just as diverse if not more so that Yugoslavia ever was.
no : most (if not all) European States can go back to either Statehood or a deep national feeling which predates by a long time the year 1918. The other hybrid creation of the 1919 Peace Treaties (Czechoslovakia) didn't last long, either

there is then the case of Belgium, which was also a quite diverse, artificial creation (but back in 1830) and which is also in the process of splitting up

best
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Well the term left and right wing comes from the french revolution. People who wanted rid of the monarchy and were pro the revolution were left wing. Liberals and socialist can be described as left wing. Liberals just think that the replacement of serf and lord with proletariat and capitalist brings the equality, liberty and fraternity proclaimed by the revolution. Socialists think we can only have equality, liberty and fraternity by progressing beyond serfdom, capitalism, towards social ownership of the economy so society is not built around dominator and dominated.

Liberals fetisize private property, But can be all about equality when it comes to human rights and racism etc.

Liberals are all about equality through the prism of private property and markets. So absolutely no aristocracy or kings, no racism, no homophobia no sexism. Although slavery is fine, since slaves are private property :indiff: The amount of support for slavery among liberals...


It's no longer appropriate to use that outdated system from the French Revolution; the terms no longer mean what they did back then. For example, the left wing in the French Revolution were those who did not support the government. You would think that left wing nowadays means those who do not support big government then. Yet, that's not the case, with 'left wingers' supporting economic intervention and nationalisation, brought about by very active government.

Liberals are right-wing because they view society as atomistic, meaning that it is composed of individuals and cannot be treated as a single group. They believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't impact other people. Liberals are suspicious of government and want as little economic intervention as possible. Modern liberals are less opposed to government interfering in society, but this is only to 'help people help themselves', and this does not make them left-wing, nowhere near the socialists.

TL;DR: The categorisation from the French Revolution is now outdated and should not be used. Right wing = free markets, left wing = big government.
Original post by SamDrake
As the title says. I have a Theory as to why, it being a website for the millennial generation and as some of you may be aware, the millennial generation has been brainwashed by the liberal/leftist agenda since they were going to primary school. Hence why the younger generation think the way they do - liberal, overly compassionate to bad entities, no boarders, citizens of the world and terrified of offending anyone who isn't white.


I rarely use this, but LOL.

Has this "liberal/leftist agenda" been around for millennia? It was Socrates who said: “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."

Secular liberal values - which are, I submit, universal values - will always beat conservative values. At every turn, conservatives cede ground to liberals: we've abolished slavery, got rid of capital punishment, given equal rights to women and most minorities, and we're getting there with rights for homosexuals and transgender people. History has - and will continue to - proved "liberals" right over and over again.

Compassion for "bad entities"? You can't defeat bad entities unless you understand why they're doing what they're doing.

No borders? Of course! These borders you speak of, I think you'll find that they're an imagined fiction, a kind of collective hallucination. They're not real. We all live on the same clump of rock.

We should try to be decent and respectful to each other. As a secular liberal, however, I understand that people don't have a right not to be offended.

EDIT: I'm referring to social liberalism here (and so was the OP) which has overlaps with classical liberalism. However, classical liberals, in addition to being socially liberal and secular, also favoured economic freedom, so were more pro-market than most of the social liberals today. I'm somewhat more classical liberal in the economic sense than I used to be too. It should be noted, however, that classical liberals like John Stuart Mill were very concerned about society as a whole, not just individuals, as many of them came from the utilitarian tradition. Mill favoured large inheritance taxes, workers' co-operatives and a co-operative wage system, and defended other socialist ideas too.
(edited 7 years ago)
I did. It was one of the worst things I have ever done. Either full of crying betas or desperate alphas trying to cling onto their privileges and dominance.
Original post by Abstract_Prism
It's no longer appropriate to use that outdated system from the French Revolution; the terms no longer mean what they did back then. For example, the left wing in the French Revolution were those who did not support the government. You would think that left wing nowadays means those who do not support big government then. Yet, that's not the case, with 'left wingers' supporting economic intervention and nationalisation, brought about by very active government.

Liberals are right-wing because they view society as atomistic, meaning that it is composed of individuals and cannot be treated as a single group. They believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't impact other people. Liberals are suspicious of government and want as little economic intervention as possible. Modern liberals are less opposed to government interfering in society, but this is only to 'help people help themselves', and this does not make them left-wing, nowhere near the socialists.

TL;DR: Right wing = free markets, left wing = big government.


This is an economic argument. What about the social aspect?
Original post by inhuman
This is an economic argument. What about the social aspect?


It wasn't a purely economic argument; I touched on society. Liberals believe that everyone is an individual, and everyone is of equal value. They believe that people are naturally self-seeking and self-reliant, but that they are also altruistic. They believe that society is made up of individuals and so it is wrong to impose a collective will on societies. Liberals strongly support freedom of speech, and are not convinced there is ever a 'wrong' opinion. Liberals believe that people should be free to choose how they live their life and what they work towards, providing that it does not infringe upon the liberty of other people.

This is right wing. Left wing would be a negative view of human nature, meaning that humans need guidance to tell them what is right and how they should live their life.
The alt-right is filled with sad, sad people who have a worrying obsession with "race", national identity and hierarchy. They don't realize that race is not a useful concept: it's simply a function of geographical distance, and that there are potentially thousands upon thousands of "races". As Cavalli-Sforza puts it:

experiments have shown that even neighbouring populations (villages or towns) can often be quite different from each other… The maximum number of testable genes is so high that we could in principle detect, and prove to be statistically significant, a difference between any two populations however close geographically or genetically. If we look at enough genes, the genetic distance between Ithaca and Albany in New York or Pisa and Florence in Italy is most likely to be significant, and therefore scientifically proven.


People in Pisa and Florence would, I think, be surprised to discover that they each belong to different races. Kenan Malik's commentary on this issue is excellent.

The alt-right is a reversion to primitive tribalism, nothing more. It's about preferring one's own kind, according to Jared Taylor, one of the leading alt-rightists, whatever that kind may be, and that's utterly illogical. It's about giving into primitive emotions and moral intuitions instead of overcoming them by reasoning our way to ethics and realising that there's no reason why I should prefer someone just because they're like me.

In essence, the alt-right is the essence of multiculturalism. It says: let's divide society into lots of different cultures and tribes. It is the process of, and I'll quote Malik here again: "putting people into ethnic and cultural boxes, defining individual needs and rights by virtue of the boxes into which people are put, and using those boxes to shape public policy... [treating] communities as if each were a distinct, homogenous whole, each composed of people all speaking with a single voice, each defined by a singular view of culture and faith... [this leads to the] creation of a more fragmented, tribal society."

This is the huge danger: alt-rightists believe that all cultures and all "kinds" are homogenous. Individuals aren't considered: they're just part of a tribe, a nation-state, a race.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Abstract_Prism
It wasn't a purely economic argument; I touched on society. Liberals believe that everyone is an individual, and everyone is of equal value. They believe that people are naturally self-seeking and self-reliant, but that they are also altruistic. They believe that society is made up of individuals and so it is wrong to impose a collective will on societies. Liberals strongly support freedom of speech, and are not convinced there is ever a 'wrong' opinion. Liberals believe that people should be free to choose how they live their life and what they work towards, providing that it does not infringe upon the liberty of other people.

This is right wing. Left wing would be a negative view of human nature, meaning that humans need guidance to tell them what is right and how they should live their life.


No, that's not right-wing. Left-wing is about dismantling social hierarchies and social inequalities; right-wingers either actively endorse these hierarchies and inequalities or believe that they are inevitable.

Liberals have always been in favour of getting rid of unjust social hierarchies and inequalities - getting rid of structures of domination (the patriarchy, institutional discrimination against people of different skin colours and sexual orientations, as well as the mistreatment of non-human animals).

Liberalism and its close counterpart libertarianism can be left-wing or right-wing, though. In any case, these labels really don't matter; at the end of the day, we should have discussions about the specific policies that we all support.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest