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

I get the impression this site is very left wing watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Saying things like "I must be the only racist whose sucked on a black ****" 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.
    You're making straw men. I look at the raw data and form my opinions from there, when I read an article I look up data to see if it's reliable, etc. The fact that my opinions, formed via this process, and those of the alt-right movement are identical is coincidence. I think you need to research more about what the alt-right actually is before you go calling it subjective. There's a lot of smearing going on at the moment with people like Clinton trying to brand us all as neonazis and white supremecists, so you have to visit alt-right websites themselves and see what people in the alt-right movement really think before making judgments.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    You're making straw men. I look at the raw data and form my opinions from there, when I read an article I look up data to see if it's reliable, etc. The fact that my opinions, formed via this process, and those of the alt-right movement are identical is coincidence. I think you need to research more about what the alt-right actually is before you go calling it subjective. There's a lot of smearing going on at the moment with people like Clinton trying to brand us all as neonazis and white supremecists, so you have to visit alt-right websites themselves and see what people in the alt-right movement really think before making judgments.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    You're making straw men. I look at the raw data and form my opinions from there, when I read an article I look up data to see if it's reliable, etc. The fact that my opinions, formed via this process, and those of the alt-right movement are identical is coincidence. I think you need to research more about what the alt-right actually is before you go calling it subjective. There's a lot of smearing going on at the moment with people like Clinton trying to brand us all as neonazis and white supremecists, so you have to visit alt-right websites themselves and see what people in the alt-right movement really think before making judgments.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Why is the latter negative?

    And you are saying left wing is necessarily authoritarian (humans need guidance) and right wing libertarian (people should be free to choose)?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Liberals have always been in favour of getting rid of unjust social hierarchies and inequalities
    No, this is not correct. Liberals believe that inequality is natural, and that inequalities are a direct consequence of the different amounts of effort people are willing to work, and they see this as just. Here's a quote from William Graham, a classical liberal theorist:

    'A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be. Nature has set upon him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness.'

    And it's not just him, either. This is core liberal theory.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Liberalism and its close counterpart libertarianism can be left-wing or right-wing, though.
    This is absolute nonsense. Liberalism is by very definition right-wing, and libertarianism is the very pinnacle of right wing politics. There is nothing more right-wing than libertarianism, an ideology that advocates absolutely no government intervention in the markets or in people's private life, and basically no laws or boundaries. This ideology puts complete faith in people's individuality and nature.

    I really don't know where you're getting your information, but it is wrong. It is simply not factually correct.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Liberals have always been in favour of 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).
    This is true, but this doesn't make liberalism left-wing! Where are you getting the idea that left-wing = tolerance, freedom, kindness, etc.? It doesn't. This quote I've just gotten from you explores the liberal belief in the equality of everyone; everyone of equal value. Tolerance, freedom, reason, justice, and individualism. These are the core tenants of liberalism, and this is what makes liberalism a right-wing ideology. By contrast, socialism and left-wing advocates subordinating the will of the individual to the will of society, the collective. Individualism is not as important in socialism because society comes first. Tolerance plays less of a roll because socialist believe there is a correct way of doing things which benefits everybody. Etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Mate it seems that:

    1. You like the label liberal
    2. You have very specific views

    Given 1. and 2. you try to use liberal as the label for your views. Except there are many groups of people that have differing views on what opinions the label "liberal" applies to.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    TL;DR: The categorisation from the French Revolution is now outdated and should not be used. Right wing = free markets, left wing = big government.
    What about market socialists or one nation conservatives? You can be right wing and support big government. Show me a right wing Republican who isn't Ron Paul and who wants to get rid of the american military complex.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    ;
    This is absolute nonsense. Liberalism is by very definition right-wing, and libertarianism is the very pinnacle of right wing politics. There is nothing more right-wing than libertarianism, an ideology that advocates absolutely no government intervention in the markets or in people's private life, and basically no laws or boundaries. This ideology puts complete faith in people's individuality and nature.
    Libertarianism has its routes in very left wing political philosophy. See anarchism and libertarian socialism. If you are going to throw back to 100+ years to get your definition of liberal you need to do the same for libertairnsim. The libertarinism you are describing was invented in the 1970s. Similar to where the modern American meaning of liberal comes from. It doesn't necessarily have much in common with its original meaning.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What about market socialists or one nation conservatives? You can be right wing and support big government. Show me a right wing Republican who isn't Ron Paul and who wants to get rid of the american military complex.
    See, problems arise when you look to American politics. Americans don't understand the meanings of these terms themselves! For years 'liberal' has been used as an insult in America; their definition of these terms has become warped and useless.

    Look to the UK. Margaret Thatcher was about as liberal as you can get. She did not believe in society because society was formed by many, many individuals, and she resented government interference. Look at the Labour Party, the left-wing party that supports nationalisation and government intervention in the economy.

    Market socialists are left wing. You can't be a liberal if you're a socialist though. That's an oxymoron.

    People these days throw around terms they don't even understand. It's incredibly frustrating.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)

    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).
    They liked slavery. Slaves are private property you see. Liberal equality was often done through the prism of private property which as a socialist will tell you severely impacts actually getting to any meaningful notion of equality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    No, this is not correct. Liberals believe that inequality is natural, and that inequalities are a direct consequence of the different amounts of effort people are willing to work, and they see this as just. Here's a quote from William Graham, a classical liberal theorist:

    'A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be. Nature has set upon him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness.'

    And it's not just him, either. This is core liberal theory.
    This is economic liberalism, I'm referring to social inequalities and social hierarchies. The left-wing is all about dismantling social hierarchy and social inequality. Thus, I'm not saying that liberalism is completely left-wing; I'm saying that on the social side it contains elements of left-wing thinking and, on the economic side, elements of right-wing thinking.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    This is absolute nonsense. Liberalism is by very definition right-wing, and libertarianism is the very pinnacle of right wing politics. There is nothing more right-wing than libertarianism, an ideology that advocates absolutely no government intervention in the markets or in people's private life, and basically no laws or boundaries. This ideology puts complete faith in people's individuality and nature.
    I think you need to read more widely. The classical libertarians - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Rocker, Godwin and so on - were libertarian socialists. Libertarianism is about dismantling structures of domination and hierarchy that limit individual freedom, which is why these classical libertarians were in favour of abolishing the state, capitalism as well as religion.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Ethics are based on emotions and moral intuitions; we didn't arrive at our current set of ethics through logical deduction.
    All of the moral and social progress that has occurred over the past few centuries didn't occur because we suddenly developed different emotions and moral intuitions. It occurred, as Steven Pinker comprehensively argues in The Better Angels of Our Nature, and as Peter Singer argues in The Expanding Circle, because we were able to use reason to come to the realization that superficial differences between sapient and sentient beings should not affect our level of consideration for them and their interests.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    And, to the alt-right, there are several reasons to prefer their own kind: survival of their genes and culture, and because perhaps they don't trust people of other races not to put their race first.
    Why should people want their genes to survive, and if so why aren't these people entirely individualistic? Why should they care about the genes of people who exist within an arbitrarily defined geographical location (races are simply functions of geographic distance)? I don't see what's so special about culture either (again, the alt-right is surrendering to cultural relativism). If "my" culture doesn't equally consider the comparable interests of all sentient beings and give similar treatment when similar interests are at stake, I want to destroy my culture and replace it with something better.
    Offline

    18
    (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.
    Don't be a numpty.
    It is as it always has been. The younger tend to be more lefty, the older tend to be more righty. Younger tend to be more progressive. Older tend to be more conservative.
    This has been the way of things since year 0.

    "If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head."
    (an oft used quote which broadly originates from mid 19th century France.)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I think you need to read more widely. The classical libertarians - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Rocker, Godwin and so on - were libertarian socialists. Libertarianism is about dismantling structures of domination and hierarchy that limit individual freedom, which is why these classical libertarians were in favour of abolishing the state, capitalism as well as religion.
    An ideology that advocates dismantling the state and hierarchy doesn't sound very 'left-wing' to me at all, considering that left-wingers support big government and economic intervention.

    If libertarians support abolishing the state, how can there be any other economic systems other than capitalism? Every other economic system requires government regulation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What threads have YOU ( OP ) been reading? This site is full of the young conservatives! I have read so many anti feminism, anti Islam, pro Brexit, anti foreigner, anti gay rights threads on this website! It's actually offensive a lot of the time. This website is not left like I expected in fact it's hard to find leftists. Half of the threads in news and current affairs are against the left. It's very tough for a feminist SNP supporter, there's just no point in commenting mostly which is probably what others like me do to be fair.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You know that experiment of mice killing themselves for pleasure rather than eating? Humans are no different. Thinking a world with no state works, is funnily enough just as much fairy tale believing as the right usually accuses "left hippies" to believe in.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    The considerations themselves are illogical. What does it matter to the human race if animals die painfully or peacefully, as long as we can eat them? If you don't care about the survival of your genes, what do you care about? Happiness? Freedom? Where's the logic behind that? Where's the logic behind humans wasting their own resources, in order to "consider the interests" of lesser beings?
    There's no justification for considering the interests of some beings, but not others. You can plead moral nihilism, but that's illogical, and at best gets you to a situation where you should not care about anyone's interests (not your own, not your "race's", not anyone's).

    Sorry for boring people with this argument, but I've yet to see a refutation of it.

    Your interests - for instance, the interest in not suffering - matter to you; at the very least, it's impossible not to try to pursue the satisfaction of your interests: if that is so, and given that there's no justification for putting your own interests above the interests of others, you ought to maximize the desire-satisfaction of every sentient being - to do otherwise would be to privilege your interests, for which there is no justification (unless you can give one).

    A rational being would ask: What is the real nature of the situation of myself among numerous others? Is it really rational for me to care more about what happens to me than to other people? Consider that each other person's wants are just as real to them - indeed, "just as real," period - as yours are to you. That you experience what happens to you differently than what happens to them is just a subjective illusion. Furthermore, your reference to yourself as "I" and to others as he or she is a grammatical illusion of relative application. There is not a difference in kind between an "I" versus a "he" or "she" like there is between circles and squares. A being who seeks objectivity must believe that the feelings of others as real and valid as her own, and that "There is no inherent specialness about 'my' feelings or desires."
    Would this abstract appreciation equate to a moral code? Yes, it must. A being who asks "what do I have reasons to do?" above all else would consider acting in accordance with its realization of the equivalence of selves to be the highest good, since it is phony to base conduct on a false premise.

    What do I care about? At the very least, as a result of this rational deliberation, I'd care about equally considering the interests of others and maximizing the desire-satisfaction of every sentient being. In the past couple of months, however, I've come to the conclusion (in line with the most important moral philosopher of the 20th and 21st Centuries, Derek Parfit) that there are irreducibly normative truths.

    As he argues in his three-volume work, On What Matters, just as there are logical and mathematical truths, there are moral truths. In my view, the intrinsic nature of pleasure gives us strong normative reasons to want to seek that pleasure, and the intrinsic nature of pain and agony gives us strong normative reasons to want to avoid these experiences. Given that these experiences occur in all sentient beings, it follows that I have reasons to maximize the happiness, and minimize the suffering, of every sentient being.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Some people care about the survival of their genes, because they think their genes are superior. Others, because they think its their duty, to keep their genes in circulation, to help natural/artificial selection take its course.
    Why are they superior?

    Helping natural selection take its course is a classic example of a fallacious appeal to nature. There's no reason to care about what's natural - what's natural doesn't equate to what is right.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    An ideology that advocates dismantling the state and hierarchy doesn't sound very 'left-wing' to me at all, considering that left-wingers support big government and economic intervention.
    That's just a circular argument. You've already decided that left-wing = big government and economic intervention (when that's simply not the definition), therefore of course it doesn't sound very left-wing to you. I'm just replying to you on factual and historical grounds, but you seem like the kind of person who is obsessed with labels. Don't focus on labels, focus on policies: if someone says something you agree with, but identifies as "left-wing", should you say "aha! See, you're really right-wing"? No, just acknowledge the common ground and talk about ways to implement that policy.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    If libertarians support abolishing the state, how can there be any other economic systems other than capitalism? Every other economic system requires government regulation.
    Libertarian socialism is an economic system: everybody freely associating with each other and working together for the common good, with no monetary reward or currency involved. If people don't like it, they can leave the commune. Read the authors I mentioned.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    They liked slavery. Slaves are private property you see. Liberal equality was often done through the prism of private property which as a socialist will tell you severely impacts actually getting to any meaningful notion of equality.
    I'm not too familiar with the pro- and anti-slavery movements, but I do know that classical liberals like Bentham and Mill were strongly opposed to slavery (although maybe this stemmed from their overall utilitarian philosophy as opposed to their liberalism, so you might be right).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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