Modern Liberals Are Intolerant Hypocrites
I'm so sick and tired of the amount of *******s I see on Facebook, or hear in day to day life on campus about how 'tolerant' liberals are because frankly they are not. I cannot generalise about all and every liberal because that is not fair, but I do want to argue the existence of one particular strain of liberalism which has flourished wildly across the western world.
I want to first establish two camps of liberals, with the latter of which I am referring to as the liberals who I despise. Classical Liberals are more closer to a libertarian position - they advocate equality on all fronts, allow a debate for any and all opponents, and believe in free expression for all. Modern Liberals, on the other hand, believe in equality but take a much more hard-lined approach, and ignore rights for expression when it comes to those they disagree with. They do not believe in giving those with bigoted views 'a platform for debate' - in other words, they are right; you can't argue with them; don't try.
Having previously been a modern liberal, I can tell you that it is easy to get swept up in their dogma, and very easy to think what you are doing is the morally right thing for everyone. But when I began to question things a little further and examine perspectives from a neutral position, I was immediately labelled a 'racist' and 'sexist'.
Modern liberals do not like free thinkers, and their first go-to in any argument is to immediately suggest or openly say you are a bigot of some kind. This is largely because it is an easy option but also it makes the audience turn against you:
It comes as a surprise that many liberal groups are now turning to violence as a means of getting their message across. Groups such as the UAF and Smash-The-EDL advocate rather aggressive and hypocritical messages in order to ostracise their opponents and rally support:
No platform for debate with bigots? Essentially they're saying it's okay not to offer democracy to those who are willing to debate with the UAF. And lest you disagree with them you are automatically a homophobe, a misogynist, you hate blacks, and any other thing under the sun they can think of. Apparently speech and the right to debate is now a weapon for their opponents. Rather ironic considering they think they are against fascism when you only have to scroll down a tiny section to see another message advocating a desire to ban their opponents voice, rather like this person who seems to think that human rights should be rewritten:
What is worst is that modern liberals seem to think they have the cure to the world and knows what it, and everyone else on the planet, needs. Its one thing to assume you have the moral high ground in one in their own country, but to try to force others to change and impose their views on other country's is nothing short of imperialism. I think this sums up this attitude towards children in another country:
'If you are a straight, white, male then you are automatically the most privileged person in the world.' - I heard those exact words coming from perhaps the most posh, rich girl I have ever had the displeasure of meeting, who has a stark cheek telling me that I'm privileged; simply being a white straight male does not guarantee any privilege. White guilt is almost a necessary component of being a modern liberal - if you don't feel shameful of your ancestor's past actions (actions which you haven't committed yourself) you are racist. And if so much as hint that immigration is unsustainable at its current rate then you are also labelled as a racist.
To sum up, I find the modern liberal agenda a hypocritical, fascist and rather aggressive new political drive that is not focused upon equality or democracy for those it opposes; they are intolerant of those who disagree with them. It is a severely flawed philosophy that is becoming ever more prominent, and revels in PC drivel. Am I the only one who thinks that modern liberals are hypocrites? What do you think?
I want to first establish two camps of liberals, with the latter of which I am referring to as the liberals who I despise. Classical Liberals are more closer to a libertarian position - they advocate equality on all fronts, allow a debate for any and all opponents, and believe in free expression for all. Modern Liberals, on the other hand, believe in equality but take a much more hard-lined approach, and ignore rights for expression when it comes to those they disagree with. They do not believe in giving those with bigoted views 'a platform for debate' - in other words, they are right; you can't argue with them; don't try.
Having previously been a modern liberal, I can tell you that it is easy to get swept up in their dogma, and very easy to think what you are doing is the morally right thing for everyone. But when I began to question things a little further and examine perspectives from a neutral position, I was immediately labelled a 'racist' and 'sexist'.
Modern liberals do not like free thinkers, and their first go-to in any argument is to immediately suggest or openly say you are a bigot of some kind. This is largely because it is an easy option but also it makes the audience turn against you:
It comes as a surprise that many liberal groups are now turning to violence as a means of getting their message across. Groups such as the UAF and Smash-The-EDL advocate rather aggressive and hypocritical messages in order to ostracise their opponents and rally support:
No platform for debate with bigots? Essentially they're saying it's okay not to offer democracy to those who are willing to debate with the UAF. And lest you disagree with them you are automatically a homophobe, a misogynist, you hate blacks, and any other thing under the sun they can think of. Apparently speech and the right to debate is now a weapon for their opponents. Rather ironic considering they think they are against fascism when you only have to scroll down a tiny section to see another message advocating a desire to ban their opponents voice, rather like this person who seems to think that human rights should be rewritten:
What is worst is that modern liberals seem to think they have the cure to the world and knows what it, and everyone else on the planet, needs. Its one thing to assume you have the moral high ground in one in their own country, but to try to force others to change and impose their views on other country's is nothing short of imperialism. I think this sums up this attitude towards children in another country:
'If you are a straight, white, male then you are automatically the most privileged person in the world.' - I heard those exact words coming from perhaps the most posh, rich girl I have ever had the displeasure of meeting, who has a stark cheek telling me that I'm privileged; simply being a white straight male does not guarantee any privilege. White guilt is almost a necessary component of being a modern liberal - if you don't feel shameful of your ancestor's past actions (actions which you haven't committed yourself) you are racist. And if so much as hint that immigration is unsustainable at its current rate then you are also labelled as a racist.
To sum up, I find the modern liberal agenda a hypocritical, fascist and rather aggressive new political drive that is not focused upon equality or democracy for those it opposes; they are intolerant of those who disagree with them. It is a severely flawed philosophy that is becoming ever more prominent, and revels in PC drivel. Am I the only one who thinks that modern liberals are hypocrites? What do you think?
Scroll to see replies
I am precisely the kind of liberal you seem to object to. To address a few of your points:
I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.
But we err all the time, and the recent change to the Public Order Act shows we are beginning to move back to a more measured approach. None of this strikes me as hypocritical.
Societies invariably have more and less privileged groups within them. Ours is one of the less stratified examples, but privilege still exists. Even ignoring the vestiges of aristocracy, a white heterosexual male Christian still enjoys some social and legal privileges over others.
Sometimes inequality manifests and perpetuates itself in outright oppression. It does all over the place, and has often enough in our history. I don't feel guilt for the actions of my ancestors, but I don't deny that the society I am part of did these things in it's past and was (and is) culpable. When we rehabilitate a criminal we don't deny their culpability for their crimes; recompense is made while life moves on.
There isn't a homogeneous movement, but people who call themselves "liberal" tend to unite behind a few basic principles: that everything not expressly forbidden is permitted, and things should only be forbidden for good reason; that there are human rights to be respected, and that balance amongst them must be struck to favour the least harm; and so on. It is edging towards ideals, not an orchestrated campaign.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.
But we err all the time, and the recent change to the Public Order Act shows we are beginning to move back to a more measured approach. None of this strikes me as hypocritical.
Societies invariably have more and less privileged groups within them. Ours is one of the less stratified examples, but privilege still exists. Even ignoring the vestiges of aristocracy, a white heterosexual male Christian still enjoys some social and legal privileges over others.
Sometimes inequality manifests and perpetuates itself in outright oppression. It does all over the place, and has often enough in our history. I don't feel guilt for the actions of my ancestors, but I don't deny that the society I am part of did these things in it's past and was (and is) culpable. When we rehabilitate a criminal we don't deny their culpability for their crimes; recompense is made while life moves on.
There isn't a homogeneous movement, but people who call themselves "liberal" tend to unite behind a few basic principles: that everything not expressly forbidden is permitted, and things should only be forbidden for good reason; that there are human rights to be respected, and that balance amongst them must be struck to favour the least harm; and so on. It is edging towards ideals, not an orchestrated campaign.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mmmpie
I am precisely the kind of liberal you seem to object to. To address a few of your points:
I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.
But we err all the time, and the recent change to the Public Order Act shows we are beginning to move back to a more measured approach. None of this strikes me as hypocritical.
Societies invariably have more and less privileged groups within them. Ours is one of the less stratified examples, but privilege still exists. Even ignoring the vestiges of aristocracy, a white heterosexual male Christian still enjoys some social and legal privileges over others.
Sometimes inequality manifests and perpetuates itself in outright oppression. It does all over the place, and has often enough in our history. I don't feel guilt for the actions of my ancestors, but I don't deny that the society I am part of did these things in it's past and was (and is) culpable. When we rehabilitate a criminal we don't deny their culpability for their crimes; recompense is made while life moves on.
There isn't a homogeneous movement, but people who call themselves "liberal" tend to unite behind a few basic principles: that everything not expressly forbidden is permitted, and things should only be forbidden for good reason; that there are human rights to be respected, and that balance amongst them must be struck to favour the least harm; and so on. It is edging towards ideals, not an orchestrated campaign.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.
But we err all the time, and the recent change to the Public Order Act shows we are beginning to move back to a more measured approach. None of this strikes me as hypocritical.
Societies invariably have more and less privileged groups within them. Ours is one of the less stratified examples, but privilege still exists. Even ignoring the vestiges of aristocracy, a white heterosexual male Christian still enjoys some social and legal privileges over others.
Sometimes inequality manifests and perpetuates itself in outright oppression. It does all over the place, and has often enough in our history. I don't feel guilt for the actions of my ancestors, but I don't deny that the society I am part of did these things in it's past and was (and is) culpable. When we rehabilitate a criminal we don't deny their culpability for their crimes; recompense is made while life moves on.
There isn't a homogeneous movement, but people who call themselves "liberal" tend to unite behind a few basic principles: that everything not expressly forbidden is permitted, and things should only be forbidden for good reason; that there are human rights to be respected, and that balance amongst them must be struck to favour the least harm; and so on. It is edging towards ideals, not an orchestrated campaign.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The right to not be offended is not a human right therefore the whole idea is ridiculous.
Original post by politixx
The right to not be offended is not a human right therefore the whole idea is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. Did I say it was?
What idea is ridiculous?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mmmpie
I am precisely the kind of liberal you seem to object to. To address a few of your points:
I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.
But we err all the time, and the recent change to the Public Order Act shows we are beginning to move back to a more measured approach. None of this strikes me as hypocritical.
Societies invariably have more and less privileged groups within them. Ours is one of the less stratified examples, but privilege still exists. Even ignoring the vestiges of aristocracy, a white heterosexual male Christian still enjoys some social and legal privileges over others.
Sometimes inequality manifests and perpetuates itself in outright oppression. It does all over the place, and has often enough in our history. I don't feel guilt for the actions of my ancestors, but I don't deny that the society I am part of did these things in it's past and was (and is) culpable. When we rehabilitate a criminal we don't deny their culpability for their crimes; recompense is made while life moves on.
There isn't a homogeneous movement, but people who call themselves "liberal" tend to unite behind a few basic principles: that everything not expressly forbidden is permitted, and things should only be forbidden for good reason; that there are human rights to be respected, and that balance amongst them must be struck to favour the least harm; and so on. It is edging towards ideals, not an orchestrated campaign.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.
But we err all the time, and the recent change to the Public Order Act shows we are beginning to move back to a more measured approach. None of this strikes me as hypocritical.
Societies invariably have more and less privileged groups within them. Ours is one of the less stratified examples, but privilege still exists. Even ignoring the vestiges of aristocracy, a white heterosexual male Christian still enjoys some social and legal privileges over others.
Sometimes inequality manifests and perpetuates itself in outright oppression. It does all over the place, and has often enough in our history. I don't feel guilt for the actions of my ancestors, but I don't deny that the society I am part of did these things in it's past and was (and is) culpable. When we rehabilitate a criminal we don't deny their culpability for their crimes; recompense is made while life moves on.
There isn't a homogeneous movement, but people who call themselves "liberal" tend to unite behind a few basic principles: that everything not expressly forbidden is permitted, and things should only be forbidden for good reason; that there are human rights to be respected, and that balance amongst them must be struck to favour the least harm; and so on. It is edging towards ideals, not an orchestrated campaign.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Whilst I agree with what you stand for, I also agree with the OP that it's rather illiberal. Hence I prefer the term 'progressive'.
Original post by mmmpie
We have a right to free speech unless it is a direct threat to national security.
Modern Liberals need to remember the words of Mill, "If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, be justified in silencing the rest of mankind."
In other words, just because you - and your companions - think you are right does not make you right. If you really are truly upholding Liberal values you will not disregard one opinion, but you will attempt to question it and argue for your own opinion.
In other words, just because you - and your companions - think you are right does not make you right. If you really are truly upholding Liberal values you will not disregard one opinion, but you will attempt to question it and argue for your own opinion.
I think the arguments raised here are all valid. There does seem to be a brand of liberalism which in itself is self defeated by preventing people from having their say because they disagree with their views. Many of these people are students as their youth and inexperience causes them to miss the bigger picture. Many do grow out of it or soften such views for a purer form of liberalism.
I can also agree that some things are harmful to say and there are consequences to saying such things such as racist or sexist remarks. However people must always have the right to say those things and then face the consequences of the words they use. If you prevent people from having their say in any small manner, it can set a precedent where the freedom of speech can be slowly eroded.
What if the unemployed were not allowed a voice because thay do not contribute to society? Or people with red hair cant?
Its this which means all people from all walks of life, rich and poor, man or women, black or white, must have there say to prevent the creeping powers that risk to strangle the right to free speech. Even if it is deemed offensive by another person and/or group of people.
I can also agree that some things are harmful to say and there are consequences to saying such things such as racist or sexist remarks. However people must always have the right to say those things and then face the consequences of the words they use. If you prevent people from having their say in any small manner, it can set a precedent where the freedom of speech can be slowly eroded.
What if the unemployed were not allowed a voice because thay do not contribute to society? Or people with red hair cant?
Its this which means all people from all walks of life, rich and poor, man or women, black or white, must have there say to prevent the creeping powers that risk to strangle the right to free speech. Even if it is deemed offensive by another person and/or group of people.
Completely agree with the OP.
A true test of your open-mindedness and willingness to listen to, or respect others beliefs, are you how you react when someone challenges your beliefs.
It's easy to talk about equality, freedom of expression and so on, when everyone is saying the same thing. But how people respond to views which they disagree with, really shows their true colour.
The UAF thing mentioned is one that gets me. The hypocrisy of claiming to fight bigots who generalize, by generalizing them and threatening them with violence. Not to mention reactions to other groups which are labeled as this, that and the third.
Similar to issues with holocaust denial, the idea that someone should be silenced because they have conflicting views (or even just because they are wrong), is a terrible idea. What's interesting is the miss match between the liberal idea, and the censorship. And yet many do not see the comparison.
This does not mean everyone should simply accept or ignore people with views they disagree with. But there is a tendency to use peer pressure, censorship and anger to fight the beliefs they disagree with.
A true test of your open-mindedness and willingness to listen to, or respect others beliefs, are you how you react when someone challenges your beliefs.
It's easy to talk about equality, freedom of expression and so on, when everyone is saying the same thing. But how people respond to views which they disagree with, really shows their true colour.
The UAF thing mentioned is one that gets me. The hypocrisy of claiming to fight bigots who generalize, by generalizing them and threatening them with violence. Not to mention reactions to other groups which are labeled as this, that and the third.
Similar to issues with holocaust denial, the idea that someone should be silenced because they have conflicting views (or even just because they are wrong), is a terrible idea. What's interesting is the miss match between the liberal idea, and the censorship. And yet many do not see the comparison.
This does not mean everyone should simply accept or ignore people with views they disagree with. But there is a tendency to use peer pressure, censorship and anger to fight the beliefs they disagree with.
Original post by Kiss
What is worst is that modern liberals seem to think they have the cure to the world and knows what it, and everyone else on the planet, needs. Its one thing to assume you have the moral high ground in one in their own country, but to try to force others to change and impose their views on other country's is nothing short of imperialism. I think this sums up this attitude towards children in another country:
'If you are a straight, white, male then you are automatically the most privileged person in the world.' - I heard those exact words coming from perhaps the most posh, rich girl I have ever had the displeasure of meeting, who has a stark cheek telling me that I'm privileged; simply being a white straight male does not guarantee any privilege. White guilt is almost a necessary component of being a modern liberal - if you don't feel shameful of your ancestor's past actions (actions which you haven't committed yourself) you are racist. And if so much as hint that immigration is unsustainable at its current rate then you are also labelled as a racist.
QUOTE]
Gotta ask, the girl your writing about, is that her?
This is definitely something I've found recently. As a follower of various "liberal" groups, I've started to spot something that seems like an extreme narrowing of perspective, rather than any sort of broadening. My personal favourite is a group, who whenever you click a link to their site, asks if you're for or against "discrimination of all people regardless of race/class/sexuality". You have the option to click "agree" or "disagree", or close the question box. I've recently stopped closing the question box and started clicking "disagree" because it's such a stupid, borderline offensive question.
All I can really say on the matter is that if "modern"/"student" liberalism can be a vehicle by which society can be improved, through increased awareness of issues, then I'm not gonna complain too much about it.
All I can really say on the matter is that if "modern"/"student" liberalism can be a vehicle by which society can be improved, through increased awareness of issues, then I'm not gonna complain too much about it.
Original post by Barden
Whilst I agree with what you stand for, I also agree with the OP that it's rather illiberal. Hence I prefer the term 'progressive'.
Perhaps that is a better word. It's part of the same old dilemma though: can we tolerate intolerance? Can a liberal society permit illiberal elements within itself?
Up to a point I think we can and should. Dissent is not necessarily a bad thing. But there are more principles involved than just being politically permissive, and a balance needs to be struck there.
Original post by politixx
We have a right to free speech unless it is a direct threat to national security.
National security seems suspiciously close to politically expedient to me. I prefer demonstrable harm as a test.
Original post by Macabre
I can also agree that some things are harmful to say and there are consequences to saying such things such as racist or sexist remarks. However people must always have the right to say those things and then face the consequences of the words they use. If you prevent people from having their say in any small manner, it can set a precedent where the freedom of speech can be slowly eroded.
Just to clarify what I mean about harmful speech: it's offensive and distasteful, but not harmful, to express xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic or any other sentiment. No form of political or ideological dissent is directly harmful.
It is harmful to encourage lynchings of black people, or to tell gay kids they are sick or evil and have no right to exist, or to threaten women with violence if they turn up at a polling station. I'm talking about demonstrable harm to people, not simply bruised feelings or damage to ideals and ideologies.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kiss
I think this sums up my thoughts more accurately and simply:
Perfect.
They are a bunch of detestable, mindless hypocrites.
The only group I find more abhorrent than "liberals" is Islamists.
Original post by mmmpie
National security seems suspiciously close to politically expedient to me. I prefer demonstrable harm as a test.
Posted from TSR Mobile
National security seems suspiciously close to politically expedient to me. I prefer demonstrable harm as a test.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I mean stuff like selling nuclear codes to North Korea or brainwashing people to start murdering others. I don't like how national security can be misused though such as the wikileaks case.
Original post by Kiss
To sum up, I find the modern liberal agenda a hypocritical, fascist and rather aggressive new political drive that is not focused upon equality or democracy for those it opposes; they are intolerant of those who disagree with them. It is a severely flawed philosophy that is becoming ever more prominent, and revels in PC drivel. Am I the only one who thinks that modern liberals are hypocrites? What do you think?
Very much agree with you, am surprised you have come to the stance that you currently have, if only more of these "modern liberals" would do the same.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Can I do medicine with these gcse grades and what unis would be most likely to acceptLast reply 1 minute ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1127
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)Posted 9 minutes ago
Can someone please mark this out of 30(all my teachers refused)Last reply 26 minutes ago
Girl cries after first day of work "How do you have time for your life?"Chat
8
Last reply 26 minutes ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 29 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 34 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 47 minutes ago
Is anyone going to graphic design in 2024 in university of Northampton?Posted 50 minutes ago
Online Delivery of Flowers to BangaloreLast reply 59 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
