Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I like the original post.

    I've been called a nazi by UAF for having a shaved head and wearing a fred perry coat!

    Hypocrisy is something I detest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    I think a perfect example of modern liberalism is in your post there. To dismiss an entire press-group as misleading and scaremongerers is in itself an attempt to completely squash their claims and opinions: perhaps without knowing you, yourself, are exactly what this topic is about
    I think this is slightly harsh. Obviously you don't want to completely dismiss or stereotype all press (and certainly not their readership) but is it wrong to point out their agendas where they (probably) exist? Some of which, many feel, are anti-liberalism, scaremongering, hate-spreading etc.

    For example the DM has literally made up stories, given deliberately misleading interpretations of research, statistics, and generally frequently publish a distorted version of reality. It is really unfair to regard them as an unreliable and potentially harmful (by which I'm not btw, saying "ban them!" but rather "be aware") paper, if you can back it up?

    Examples:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Muhammad.html
    - Judge not a recent convert to Islam never said "I'm a muslim". These are literally quite ridiculous made-up claims by the DM.

    Literally every single year they do a "Christmas is BANNED by muslims/atheists/PC brigade!!", frequently without any causative/correlatory evidence and in some cases where no such thing (eg: taking down the christmas lights) has even happened.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...ssion-article/

    Etc etc
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    I think this is slightly harsh. Obviously you don't want to completely dismiss or stereotype all press (and certainly not their readership) but is it wrong to point out their agendas where they (probably) exist? Some of which, many feel, are anti-liberalism, scaremongering, hate-spreading etc.

    For example the DM has literally made up stories, given deliberately misleading interpretations of research, statistics, and generally frequently publish a distorted version of reality. It is really unfair to regard them as an unreliable and potentially harmful (by which I'm not btw, saying "ban them!" but rather "be aware") paper, if you can back it up?
    The way it read to me was that my idea of what modern liberalism is is simply a twisted view that is fed to me by a scaremongering conservative press. If I have misunderstood the posters point then he can feel free to correct me, if not then I stand by what I said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    I think a perfect example of modern liberalism is in your post there. To dismiss an entire press-group as misleading and scaremongerers is in itself an attempt to completely squash their claims and opinions: perhaps without knowing you, yourself, are exactly what this topic is about. What you consider misleading someone considers as truth and it is up to you to attempt to argue your point across, not simply dismiss it (as many dismiss the Daily Mail as utter crap purely because they disagree with what it publishes) and brush it under the carpet. This leads to a broad group of people that go unheard, which in turn leads to a large group of angry people and that's what results in extreme forms of communication, i.e: EDL.

    Again, I ask of you, who decides what speech is "harmful"? Are the anti-Monarchy campaigns that a lot of liberals support harmful? Is the opposition to gay marriage classed as "harmful" to society? Where do we draw the line at harmful?
    You're effectively asking me to endorse things with which I disagree. I find deception and scaremongering tactics common amongst the political press, I find this distasteful and approach much media content with skepticism. And I share my opinion, other people can take as much or as little account of it as they choose; just as they can of the DM's editorial. In what way am I attempting to "completely squash their claims and opinions"? By not agreeing with them, and advising a cautious reading of their arguments?

    You're conflating free expression with freedom from criticism. If you don't want to be open to criticism, to link your reputation to your views, speak privately.

    We establish a definition of harm, and we should include restricting a person's rights within that just as we should injury and financial loss. Ideally we'd set objective measures of harm, but that's probably not practical. Then leave it to the judge to decide which is the lesser harm.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    The way it read to me was that my idea of what modern liberalism is is simply a twisted view that is fed to me by a scaremongering conservative press. If I have misunderstood the posters point then he can feel free to correct me, if not then I stand by what I said.
    Fair enough. I think if that is what they expressed then it's too extreme :p: But I do think it's important not to be naive about the press, their agenda(s) and political and financial affiliations. I think it is fair to say that several publications frequently present a distorted/strawman image of liberalism (eg: exaggerated or outright fake stories about "PC gone mad" is probably the best example).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    You're conflating free expression with freedom from criticism. If you don't want to be open to criticism, to link your reputation to your views, speak privately.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But you said it yourself in your first post that you don't agree with a platform for bigots. And bigoted views are not harmful as you define it, harmful would constitute openly threatening people. You're not concerned with a freedom of expression and right to be criticised/criticise, you simply don't want certain people to speak in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    x
    Glad you differentiated between classical liberals and modern liberals, I belong to the former.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    I think if we look at the OP you can see clear evidence to suggest this is true.
    Lazy. It's your argument, you should bring the evidence.

    Then we have the debacle of the attempt to stop Nick Griffin from appearing on the BBC.
    Which was orchestrated by senior members of the BBC, who are non party-political in their roles.

    I can speak from personal experience when I say I know people that fit in the category that the OP labels "modern liberal": the same people are all for freedom of speech and expression, until it comes to someone voicing an opinion that is directly opposite to theirs. I say "I disagree with mass immigration", they say "racist" and attempt to completely block my argument with the repeated accusation of me being bigoted.
    Anecdotal evidence similar to that used by Kiss which, for all we know, is complete BS. Not worth mentioning.

    I think a lot of you are missing the point of the topic: it isn't to disparage liberalism, more to promote the true ethics of it and try to take away the negative aspect that seems to have come around the past few years. Modern Liberalism seems to take home in organisations such as the UAF where violence is met with violence and any attempt to argue against them is met with a protest or a petition to make sure your voice is not heard.
    I didn't miss the point of the topic, I criticised the sweeping generalisation put forward by Kiss which you are now putting supporting that modern liberals have no respect for freedom of speech. In all likelihood there are far fewer of these obnoxious individuals in modern liberal parties around the globe than in the left-wing and right-wing ones.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Anecdotal evidence similar to that used by Kiss which, for all we know, is complete BS. Not worth mentioning.

    I didn't miss the point of the topic, I criticised the sweeping generalisation put forward by Kiss which you are now putting supporting that modern liberals have no respect for freedom of speech. In all likelihood there are far fewer of these obnoxious individuals in modern liberal parties around the globe than in the left-wing and right-wing ones.
    Whilst I am inclined to agree in the respect to right wing parties, my post is aimed to show that idiocy exists in both spectrum of politics. I provided some evidence for my claims which, while not amazingly substantial, is more that you've offered. Before making wild assumptions as the above, I'd say it's only common courtesy to do likewise in offering some evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Whilst I am inclined to agree in the respect to right wing parties, my post is aimed to show that idiocy exists in both spectrum of politics. I provided some evidence for my claims which, while not amazingly substantial, is more that you've offered. Before making wild assumptions as the above, I'd say it's only common courtesy to do likewise in offering some evidence.
    Your evidence is not worth considering. It is entirely anecdotal and for all we know is complete BS you have fabricated to aid an attack on an ideology you disagree with. I can't provide any evidence that wouldn't be anecdotal either, but then, unlike you, I haven't claimed to be able to. But then, this is allowed for in 'In all likelihood'; i.e. it's possible otherwise. This tone wasn't present in your OP which asserted your opinion without evidence. My reasoning behind saying this is that, as you said, the liberal 'ethos' is to respect others' right to freedom of speech, so it makes sense that liberals will be the last to behave in a way that infringes on people's right to free speech. There is some logic to that opinion, if not non-existent quantification of every politically active person's level of respect for free speech. There isn't any logic to your posts, let alone hard evidence, that modern liberals are generally inclined or even more inclined than supporters of other ideologies towards restraining freedom of expression.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    UAF aren't liberals, they are left wing extremists and should be treated no differently to the EDL.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    But you said it yourself in your first post that you don't agree with a platform for bigots. And bigoted views are not harmful as you define it, harmful would constitute openly threatening people. You're not concerned with a freedom of expression and right to be criticised/criticise, you simply don't want certain people to speak in the first place.
    I said I don't believe that free expression obliges others to provide a platform, not that they shouldn't have one. Or would you rather my right to free speech obliges you to relay my opinions?

    I know that bigoted views are not necessarily harmful (at least, not in the sense we're talking about). I have already said that. I have said repeatedly and at length: dissent and offensiveness are not enough to make something harmful and therefore should not be restricted.

    I don't particularly want certain people to speak, you're right. But I don't claim to have a right to stop them; not without some very compelling, objectively demonstrable reason at least.

    Try attacking what I say, not what you imagine I mean.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Lazy. It's your argument, you should bring the evidence.
    The evidence needed is in the original post. Every bit of evidence towards this argument will be anecdotal, as in it will be an experience which leads us to this point. Short of that we can only see the blanket-ban on most right-wing groups on national TV, often supported and/or orchestrated by those under a liberalist banner.

    Which was orchestrated by senior members of the BBC, who are non party-political in their roles.
    Which was supported by liberal groups. You can't deny that. A person who can relate to being a Modern Liberal has himself say he does advocate denying platforms to right-wing speakers.

    Anecdotal evidence similar to that used by Kiss which, for all we know, is complete BS. Not worth mentioning.
    I can assure you it isn't but if you wish to ignore it on the basis I might lie to win an argument on the internet then so be it; burying your head under the rug is often a tactic used by the modern liberal.



    I didn't miss the point of the topic, I criticised the sweeping generalisation put forward by Kiss which you are now putting supporting that modern liberals have no respect for freedom of speech. In all likelihood there are far fewer of these obnoxious individuals in modern liberal parties around the globe than in the left-wing and right-wing ones.
    We aren't denying the existence of these people in both left and right parties, however the OP simply pointed out the blind hypocrisy of quite a few liberals. These people exist in liberal movements just as much as in others. Again, I should point out this isn't disparaging to liberalism, more an argument that certain people don't fully stand behind true liberalism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed. I really dislike this style of liberal that proliferates the internet these days and, sadly, form most student governments. You sum up their hypocritical intolerance quite nicely. All views need to be heard, and it's a shame when something has been pre-branded as bigotry, because no matter how fair or constructive a point it provides, it gets ignored in an undemocratic manner. Just because an opinion happens to challenge an element of the 'politically correct' status quo doesn't mean it's wrong - always give it time and hear it out; it could be quite accurate.

    Political correctness and tolerance of others can be a good thing, but when it's enforced by people with an agenda, it becomes something ugly and dogmatic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    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 totally agree with you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're right. What we need is some sort of anti-liberal, anti-anti-fascist group to rise up and take the fight to these bigoted anti-bigots. You can bet they'll set up some sort of bigoted anti-pro-bigot, anti-anti-liberal resistance though.

    Bigots and dogmatists are bigots and dogmatists, no matter what name they go under. We should just ignore them all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone hates liberals. I hate both kinds.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Everyone hates liberals. I hate both kinds.
    Why both kinds?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Why both kinds?
    The first for being wishy washy and not really knowing what they want and for generally siding with capitalism when push comes to shove. The second kind for being pro capitalism and only favouring freedom for people with property.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.