Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Liberal "anti-X is Y" statements: true or false?

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Myths and facts on Student Finance - on TSR from 2pm! 16-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is something like the "what's your view on (long list of subjects)..." threads that pop up every so often.

    I have seriously reconsidered my political views towards the centre from extreme right lately. Yet I am still annoyed at the extreme left on many subjects trying to attack a conservative principle not on its own merits, which can for most of them be done persuasively on different principles, but as "anti" something or one of the bogey words (racist, homophobic, misogynistic) which automatically makes it a terrible opinion to hold and justifies disrespecting those that do.

    Which of these typical liberal statements can be reasonably supported and why?
    Anti-Abortion is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Contraception is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Feminism is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Multiculturalism is "Racist"
    Anti-Black Studies/Ethnic Studies etc. in universities is "Racist"
    Anti-Explicit Sex Education is "Anti-Child/Youth" and sometimes "Misogynist"
    Anti-Welfare Expansion/ more generous benefit reform is "Anti-Poor"
    Saying people are responsible for their actions and blaming the riots on the perpetrators is "Anti-Poor"
    Anti-Same Sex Marriage in civil law is "Homophobic/Anti-Gay"
    Anti-Same Sex Adoption is "Homophobic/Anti-Gay"
    Anti-Progressive Education is "Anti-Young People" and "Anti-Intellectual", sometimes also "Racist" and "Misogynist"
    Voting ID laws in the US are "Racist", "Anti-Poor", "Anti-Immigrant"
    Not having gun control in the US is "Racist", "Anti-Poor"
    Voting Republican is "Anti-Woman".
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Yet I am still annoyed at the extreme left on many subjects trying to attack a conservative principle not on its own merits, which can for most of them be done persuasively on different principles, but as "anti" something or one of the bogey words (racist, homophobic, misogynistic) which automatically makes it a terrible opinion to hold and justifies disrespecting those that do.
    Nobody actually does that.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry but the left by no means has a monopoly on simplistic platitudes.

    Just like the right doesn't have a monopoly on straw men.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Anti-Abortion is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Contraception is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Feminism is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Multiculturalism is "Racist"
    Anti-Explicit Sex Education is just ignorant
    Anti-Same Sex Marriage in civil law is "Homophobic/Anti-Gay"
    Anti-Same Sex Adoption is "Homophobic/Anti-Gay"
    Voting ID laws in the US are "Racist", "Anti-Poor", "Anti-Immigrant"
    Not having gun control in the US is really really stupid and the product of an overpowered NRA lobby
    Voting Republican is "Anti-Woman" because see above.
    Those ones, with my edits in bold. Frankly I think its ridiculously selfish to believe that your religious/cultural views should be important enough to cause others tangible inconvenience or worse, or cost others money. The Anti-Woman ones are basically because its often men who advocate that kind of rubbish, and its the classic case of sacrificing others for some kind of abstract satisfaction that has no real (tangible) effect to one's self.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fmallabykay12)
    Those ones, with my edits in bold. Frankly I think its ridiculously selfish to believe that your religious/cultural views should be important enough to cause others tangible inconvenience or worse, or cost others money. The Anti-Woman ones are basically because its often men who advocate that kind of rubbish, and its the classic case of sacrificing others for some kind of abstract satisfaction that has no real (tangible) effect to one's self.
    Polls I have read show abortion views are roughly equally split by males and females on either side. I have seen the Planned Parenthood poster: "77% of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100% of them will never get pregnant." That may be true but is explained by the fact that many are social conservatives who are more likely to have children and a wife who prefers to stay at home, or affiliated with Catholicism which privileges males at the higher end.

    Sacrificing others for satisfaction is what women who choose to kill their unborn children do! Contraception (except not government funded and not forced upon people whose religious beliefs are against it, possibly with some more parental consent requirements) and the dictionary definition of feminism are things that I approve of. Extremist feminism which goes to being anti-man is not so good and does not represent the vast majority of women: it's not "anti-woman" to oppose this.

    You might support same-sex marriage & adoption but believing a child should have both a mother and a father if possible is not homophobic as it excludes other situations (most comparably, two straight single friends of the same sex adopting a child together when they have both reached their late 30s without finding a long-term partner but want to be mums/dads.) It is not the sexual activity of the parents which fuels mainstream opposition to this, but my three years on the far right shows that paedo-hysteria about "the gays" does factor into their thinking. So some anti-SSM/adoption proponents are homophobes but others are not.

    On voting laws, do you think it's just a matter of "anti-Dem" full stop? Rachel Maddow speaks of the fact that first-time voters, college students, minorities and the poor are much more likely to vote Democratic at all levels and the least likely to have a photo ID. She then says that voter ID laws are not so much aimed at a specific group but at subverting the process of democracy because they know that their views are minority on some things (union-stripping, anti-gay policies, health care, tax cuts for businesses and hikes for the masses) and would otherwise see them out of any chance of winning in November.

    Finally how is it "ignorant" to believe that parents should educate about sex and schools keep out of it? I support some sex ed in school now, having left the ultraconservative/ reactionary view, but parents' opt-out and preventing explicit curricula being used are worth fighting for.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    This is something like the "what's your view on (long list of subjects)..." threads that pop up every so often.

    I have seriously reconsidered my political views towards the centre from extreme right lately. Yet I am still annoyed at the extreme left on many subjects trying to attack a conservative principle not on its own merits, which can for most of them be done persuasively on different principles, but as "anti" something or one of the bogey words (racist, homophobic, misogynistic) which automatically makes it a terrible opinion to hold and justifies disrespecting those that do.

    Which of these typical liberal statements can be reasonably supported and why?
    Anti-Abortion is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Contraception is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Feminism is "Anti-Woman"
    Anti-Multiculturalism is "Racist"
    Anti-Black Studies/Ethnic Studies etc. in universities is "Racist"
    Anti-Explicit Sex Education is "Anti-Child/Youth" and sometimes "Misogynist"
    Anti-Welfare Expansion/ more generous benefit reform is "Anti-Poor"
    Saying people are responsible for their actions and blaming the riots on the perpetrators is "Anti-Poor"
    Anti-Same Sex Marriage in civil law is "Homophobic/Anti-Gay"
    Anti-Same Sex Adoption is "Homophobic/Anti-Gay"
    Anti-Progressive Education is "Anti-Young People" and "Anti-Intellectual", sometimes also "Racist" and "Misogynist"
    Voting ID laws in the US are "Racist", "Anti-Poor", "Anti-Immigrant"
    Not having gun control in the US is "Racist", "Anti-Poor"
    Voting Republican is "Anti-Woman".
    Oh shut up, if it wasn't for liberals you wouldn't even have basic rights.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    All of the statements in the op can be made out to be pretty much true by anyone arguing with a basic level of political savoir faire. Which, I somehow suspect, the OP lacks...
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    liberals and leftists alike are the ones destroying this country. I get incredibly frustrated at their political correctness crusade. We need a strong right wing government to put the left back in its place. That place place is in history.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    This is something like the "what's your view on (long list of subjects)..." threads that pop up every so often.

    I have seriously reconsidered my political views towards the centre from extreme right lately. Yet I am still annoyed at the extreme left on many subjects trying to attack a conservative principle not on its own merits, which can for most of them be done persuasively on different principles, but as "anti" something or one of the bogey words (racist, homophobic, misogynistic) which automatically makes it a terrible opinion to hold and justifies disrespecting those that do.

    Which of these typical liberal statements can be reasonably supported and why?
    The answer to all of them is 'not necessarily', but in practise 'probably'.

    You might think of this as an extreme example, but consider the 'Anti-Islamic Terrorism' demonstrations that happen across Britain. Is anyone who turn up to these things anti-islamic?

    Not Necessarily. You could be fine with Islam in general as a religion, but be against it in its extreme forms. That is an entirely uncontroversial stand point to have. However, now consider the type of people who actually turn up to these things. The BNP and EDL; two groups of people who although they will argue they are merely standing up for Britain are for the most part violent, xenophobic thugs who hate Islam. So in practise, is anyone who turns up to an 'Anti-Islamic Terrorism' rally anti-islam? 'Probably'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    liberals and leftists alike are the ones destroying this country. I get incredibly frustrated at their political correctness crusade. We need a strong right wing government to put the left back in its place. That place place is in history.
    explain? One could easily argue that since 'the rise of the left' in Britain, crime has fallen, on average we have become more prosperous and we live in a much nicer, tolerant society.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Not having gun control in the US is "Racist", "Anti-Poor"
    Is it not the other way round because when the Brady Act (an example of gun control) increased background checks on people who wanted guns, resulting in less people with a criminal background betting access to guns, therefore less poor and black people getting access, therefore being an example of how gun control itself can be considered 'racist' or 'anti-poor'. What is the reason for the viewpoint I quoted?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dem503)
    explain? One could easily argue that since 'the rise of the left' in Britain, crime has fallen, on average we have become more prosperous and we live in a much nicer, tolerant society.
    One could also argue that there is a lack or morality on our society. Also additionally need I mention the massive benefits culture that blights our country. Or how about the uncontrolled immigration or the soft judicial system. How about our massive out of control national health service that wastes a vast amount of money, or just the oversized public sector in general.

    The left has done far more damage than good.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    One could also argue that there is a lack or morality on our society. Also additionally need I mention the massive benefits culture that blights our country. Or how about the uncontrolled immigration or the soft judicial system. How about our massive out of control national health service that wastes a vast amount of money, or just the oversized public sector in general.

    The left has done far more damage than good.
    oh my....

    1) Lack of morality on our society- would love to hear your in depth view on this, but I'm guessing you do not realise morality changes from person to person. If you think there is a lack of morality, you should recognise it as the majority of people do not share your morality.
    We should not be forced to accept one morality, end of.

    2) Benefits Culture- as with many things; greatly exaggerated. It was generous in some areas but also woefully inadequate in other places (have you ever tried to pay the bills whilst looking for a job on £50 a week? Have you ever had to pay the bills at all?!)

    3) Uncontrolled immigration- You sound like a dinosaur from the 70's. Immigrants come in and do all the jobs the British are too lazy to do. Ever wondered why plumbers are so expensive at the moment? A huge majority the Polish immigrants who came to Britain about 10 years ago who filled those types of jobs have left. (this is not a bizarre opinion, it has happened)

    4) Massive out of control health service- how can you pin that on anyone? All the 'righties' would want a national health service scrapped if they had their own way, pay for your own health care etc. The NHS has been wasting money for years, the money put into it in the early 00s was an attempt to fix it.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dem503)
    oh my....

    1) Lack of morality on our society- would love to hear your in depth view on this, but I'm guessing you do not realise morality changes from person to person. If you think there is a lack of morality, you should recognise it as the majority of people do not share your morality.
    We should not be forced to accept one morality, end of.



    2) Benefits Culture- as with many things; greatly exaggerated. It was generous in some areas but also woefully inadequate in other places (have you ever tried to pay the bills whilst looking for a job on £50 a week? Have you ever had to pay the bills at all?!)

    3) Uncontrolled immigration- You sound like a dinosaur from the 70's. Immigrants come in and do all the jobs the British are too lazy to do. Ever wondered why plumbers are so expensive at the moment? A huge majority the Polish immigrants who came to Britain about 10 years ago who filled those types of jobs have left. (this is not a bizarre opinion, it has happened)

    4) Massive out of control health service- how can you pin that on anyone? All the 'righties' would want a national health service scrapped if they had their own way, pay for your own health care etc. The NHS has been wasting money for years, the money put into it in the early 00s was an attempt to fix it.

    1) Here is evidence of a lack or morality in a society. A product of a Libor government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

    2) Benefits is out of control, it should be much less than it already is. It shouldn't be a life style choice like you seem to imply.

    3) Selecting one group of immigrants isn't correct. There are many others.

    4) The NHS and the public sector need trimming down. Its a disaster that has already happened. We need a strong right wing government to put it back in its box.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    1) Here is evidence of a lack or morality in a society. A product of a Libor government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

    2) Benefits is out of control, it should be much less than it already is. It shouldn't be a life style choice like you seem to imply.

    3) Selecting one group of immigrants isn't correct. There are many others. One would say by singling out the good polish people that you are indeed a racist. I am not one of them, but you are.

    4) The NHS and the public sector need trimming down. Its a disaster that has already happened. We need a strong right wing government to put it back in its box.
    I raise you the 1981 riots which happened under a right wing tory party. The lack of morality stemmed from within the government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_England_riots)

    I never implied benefits should be a life style choice, but some people need them when they fall on hard times. If someone claims benefits, it does not immediately mean it is their lifestyle to do so.

    I never said all polish people were plumbers (which would be racist), but I illustrated that this 'immigration problem' (coming to Britain, sitting around enjoying the country without contributing) clearly doesn't apply to the main group of immigrants, as a majority got jobs and have since left.

    There are problems with the NHS and possibly with the public sector yes, but how would a right wing government change anything? What could they do that the tories in the 80s could not? (apply that question to all points)
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dem503)
    I raise you the 1981 riots which happened under a right wing tory party. The lack of morality stemmed from within the government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_England_riots)

    I never implied benefits should be a life style choice, but some people need them when they fall on hard times. If someone claims benefits, it does not immediately mean it is their lifestyle to do so.

    I never said all polish people were plumbers (which would be racist), but I illustrated that this 'immigration problem' (coming to Britain, sitting around enjoying the country without contributing) clearly doesn't apply to the main group of immigrants, as a majority got jobs and have since left.

    There are problems with the NHS and possibly with the public sector yes, but how would a right wing government change anything? What could they do that the tories in the 80s could not? (apply that question to all points)
    Bold: you implied it by suggesting the bills would have to paid solely out of that £50 p/w. If it wasn't a lifestyle, said person would have savings from their previous employment that would cover the period until they found a new job without serious financial hardship.

    Italics: how on Earth would that be racist? It would be factually incorrect, but racist? That's the overtly PC nonsense that I can't stand.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Bold: you implied it by suggesting the bills would have to paid solely out of that £50 p/w. If it wasn't a lifestyle, said person would have savings from their previous employment that would cover the period until they found a new job without serious financial hardship.

    Italics: how on Earth would that be racist? It would be factually incorrect, but racist? That's the overtly PC nonsense that I can't stand.
    You're assuming this person has savings, if they don't?

    To say that everyone in a racial has the same characteristic (whatever that may be) is racist, it does not have to be an overwhelmingly negative characteristic. Why is it overly PC? If you were to say all %&^% people were criminals, that would be racist, the people of %&^% would be offended.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dem503)
    You're assuming this person has savings, if they don't?

    To say that everyone in a racial has the same characteristic (whatever that may be) is racist, it does not have to be an overwhelmingly negative characteristic. Why is it overly PC? If you were to say all %&^% people were criminals, that would be racist, the people of %&^% would be offended.
    They should. It isn't difficult to save a pound here or there, and those pounds add up.

    It's stereotyping, not racism. Racism implies a negative characteristic, as, like you said, criminality does. Saying "all Poles are plumbers" is identical to "all French men are stylish"; it's (definitely, in the latter example ) incorrect, it's stereotyping, but it's not racist.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    Is it not the other way round because when the Brady Act (an example of gun control) increased background checks on people who wanted guns, resulting in less people with a criminal background betting access to guns, therefore less poor and black people getting access, therefore being an example of how gun control itself can be considered 'racist' or 'anti-poor'. What is the reason for the viewpoint I quoted?
    Well, I was going to say that Republicans accuse Democrats of the same things when gun control is proposed. They also say the opposite about other things- raising or expanding benefits is called out as "anti-poor" because people will become trapped on government dependency instead of getting themselves out into more prosperity through jobs, and low prison sentences or otherwise scaling back punishment for breaking the law as "racist" and "anti-poor" as the majority of crime by impoverished people is within their own communities turning them into ghettos, which have a lot of minorities in them.

    I was focusing on statements made by the left for this one though.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I have seriously reconsidered my political views towards the centre from extreme right lately. Yet I am still annoyed at the extreme left on many subjects trying to attack a conservative principle not on its own merits, which can for most of them be done persuasively on different principles, but as "anti" something or one of the bogey words (racist, homophobic, misogynistic) which automatically makes it a terrible opinion to hold and justifies disrespecting those that do.
    Good for you! Wherever you are on the political spectrum, always keep your views under review. And rational arguments are always superior to labels - they annoy me too.

    Some of those opinions would still be terrible to hold though

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 8, 2012
New on TSR

A-level secrets uncovered

Learn from the experience of last year's A-level students

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.