You are Here: Home

# Generation Z is the most conservative since WW2 watch

Announcements
1. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
Oh Christ, here we go again with the misunderstanding of statistics. And it wasn't the Daily Mail which conducted the poll.

This is a huge problem with TSR, we have GCSE commentators who have just learnt about sample sizes and source bias, and parrot it all back without any understanding.

How can a sample of only 800 or 1,200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points?

Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes that are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coin tosses, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

Sample survey reliability works the same way -- but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1,000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples that could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3 percentage points of the true percentage among the population.

Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors, such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae.
Are these the same completely unbiased and 100% accurate pollsters who correctly predicted the voting intentions of the UK and US elections?

All I'm saying is that there is no infallible technique in taking 2,000 people's results from one survey and immediately assuming it represents the views of almost a billion.

Every pollster has an agenda - if you bothered to look at any other surveys on any other issue you would notice that results vary wildly from one survey group to another depending on the agenda of the company running it and the desired outcome of the poll.
2. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
Oh Christ, here we go again with the misunderstanding of statistics. And it wasn't the Daily Mail which conducted the poll.

This is a huge problem with TSR, we have GCSE commentators who have just learnt about sample sizes and source bias, and parrot it all back without any understanding.

How can a sample of only 800 or 1,200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points?

Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes that are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coin tosses, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

Sample survey reliability works the same way -- but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1,000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples that could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3 percentage points of the true percentage among the population.

Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors, such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae.

3. (Original post by Unistudent77)
Interesting you thought that.

Under 16 i said i'd never have a cigarette. Barely drink.
Never contemplated any of the other drugs.

I would believe all the propaganda, steroids is a good one for example ie they're the devil when in reality, no they're not. (And no i don't use them and don't plan to in the medium-term, probably ever)
Oh no. I was terrified of drugs I believed all the propaganda from stuff like Talk to Frank. I didn't drink and thought it would kill me I just didn't see why cigs can be legal and something that seems comparatively a lot less harmful like weed be illegal. Plus there is the addiction, it is possible to be a recreational moderate or low weed user. Cigs are just addictive as ****. Cigs are evil.

My position was that fi such dangerous stuff such as alcohol is available and everybody consumes it why is other stuff also illegal. Even though I am not a drug user beyond drinking a moderate amount of alcohol I have become a lot more open to drug use personally. If I had access to weed I would give it a try.
4. (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Oh no. I was terrified of drugs I believed all the propaganda from stuff like Talk to Frank. I didn't drink and thought it would kill me I just didn't see why cigs can be legal and something that seems comparatively a lot less harmful like weed be illegal. Plus there is the addiction, it is possible to be a recreational moderate or low weed user. Cigs are just addictive as ****. Cigs are evil.

My position was that fi such dangerous stuff such as alcohol is available and everybody consumes it why is other stuff also illegal. Even though I am not a drug user beyond drinking a moderate amount of alcohol I have become a lot more open to drug use personally. If I had access to weed I would give it a try.
Yeah i get you.

I agree that if alcohol is legal then so should weed.

Cigs are horrible but i do have friends that can smoke and then stop etc.
However, i've never had a sober cigarette and never want to break that.
They offer no real 'high' and have so many negative effects over time. However rolled tobacco ie Amber leaf is far better than actual cigs (Lambert and Butler, Marlboro etc).
Hopefully smoking rates will continue to decline.

Yeah fair, the uni bubble does/will do that to you. I've seen some states haha

I always find it funny when people say they don't have access to weed (i believe you) just that i went to school in a nice area (not where i go to uni at all) and in our year people became dealers.
Yes it is the neds (chavs if you're English) but it's weed so it's fine picking up from them.

I've never bought off them but everyone who we went to school with knows they sell and could get it if they fb'd them. So easy peasy.

Uni is way easier as obviously demand is v high
Generation Z (people born after 2000) have more conservative views on gay marriage
You wish. This is laughably, patently false.
6. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
However, you are ignoring the existence of conservative (or anti-Islamic) atheists; just compare Richard Dawkins to the pope, Dawkins is far more islamophobic
Dawkins is not a conservative. In 2015 he expressed his preference for a Labour government, and has in the past been a very public supporter of the Labour Party. Just like Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz despise Trump. Just as Bill Maher is still a liberal despite being awake to the Islamist threat.

There are plenty of us who are anti-regressive atheists (often of a moderate Blairite disposition) who haven't felt the need to jump on the mindless alt-reich bandwagon and constantly fight Twitter battles because some neckbeard got triggered by a feminist saying women should be allowed to own property and vote.
7. If you want to see some plausible statistics, here's a start.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/...-sex-marriage/

Those born after 1980 overwhelmingly favour gay marriage (73%). In fact, in the millenial age bracket even a majority of Republicans support gay marriage. There is a clear relationship between age demographic and likelihood of supporting gay marriage; the generations who largely opposed it tooth and nail are dying off, and those who largely support it are now coming into positions of power.

Increasingly, people who oppose it are considered weird and eccentric (at best, and crackpot bigots at worst). It goes to show how badly triggered Christian conservatives are by their devastating defeat on this issue that some of them are still trying to fight this issue even as the fact of fighting it ensures they become ever more discredited in the public eye and the churches continue to decline in membership.

In fact, the number of people who go to church on Sunday is miniscule. 1.4% of the population go to Anglican services on sundays on a regular basis. A similar (though likely smaller) proportion go to Catholic services. I would be surprised if it's more than one-in-twenty, or 5%, who go to any kind of Christian service on a sunday.

The Christian conservatives like ladbants who desperately want to believe that there is some kind of conservative backlash coming (they've predicted this for every generation since the 1960s) are increasingly like those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out in the jungles "fighting" the Americans in the 1970s, thirty years after World War 2 ended. The war is over, we won, you lost. Try to get to grips with it. Though either way, we don't really care what you think; we don't live by your warrant and your permission anymore, and your approval is irrelevant to us.

Unistudent77 (thought you might appreciate this viewpoint)
8. (Original post by AlexanderHam)
If you want to see some plausible statistics, here's a start.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/...-sex-marriage/

Those born after 1980 overwhelmingly favour gay marriage (73%). In fact, in the millenial age bracket even a majority of Republicans support gay marriage. There is a clear relationship between age demographic and likelihood of supporting gay marriage; the generations who largely opposed it tooth and nail are dying off, and those who largely support it are now coming into positions of power.

Increasingly, people who oppose it are considered weird and eccentric (at best, and crackpot bigots at worst). It goes to show how badly triggered Christian conservatives are by their devastating defeat on this issue that some of them are still trying to fight this issue even as the fact of fighting it ensures they become ever more discredited in the public eye and the churches continue to decline in membership.

In fact, the number of people who go to church on Sunday is miniscule. 1.4% of the population go to Anglican services on sundays on a regular basis. A similar (though likely smaller) proportion go to Catholic services. I would be surprised if it's more than one-in-twenty, or 5%, who go to any kind of Christian service on a sunday.

The Christian conservatives like ladbants who desperately want to believe that there is some kind of conservative backlash coming (they've predicted this for every generation since the 1960s) are increasingly like those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out in the jungles "fighting" the Americans in the 1970s, thirty years after World War 2 ended. The war is over, we won, you lost. Try to get to grips with it. Though either way, we don't really care what you think; we don't live by your warrant and your permission anymore, and your approval is irrelevant to us.

Unistudent77 (thought you might appreciate this viewpoint)
Strong post. Indeed.

This momentum will not be reversed.

You need a root cause. So like strong religios belief will lead to opposition to Gay marriage, Abortion, drugs, sex before marriage etc.

People who say they believe has consistently fallen and hence attitudes have liberalised to the above issues. Simple as that
9. (Original post by Unistudent77)
Strong post. Indeed.

This momentum will not be reversed.

You need a root cause. So like strong religios belief will lead to opposition to Gay marriage, Abortion, drugs, sex before marriage etc.

People who say they believe has consistently fallen and hence attitudes have liberalised to the above issues. Simple as that
True. Also, the fact that the churches are against sex before marriage, gay marriage, even condoms and contraception, is a big factor in many people deciding to leave the church. They find that the church is just completely out of step and out of touch with normal views on these subjects.

In the Middle Ages, the church was deeply embedded in the lives of all people; their views on morality, cosmology, philosophy, were universally believed. These days, the churches are marginal organisations; they have very little influence on what people believe in terms of social and sexual morality, in terms of explanations for the origins of the universe. Church morality has been superseded by more logical, and more moral, forms of thinking (such as that gay people should not be persecuted, and that the world was not created in seven days by a sky dictator)
10. (Original post by AlexanderHam)
True. Also, the fact that the churches are against sex before marriage, gay marriage, even condoms and contraception, is a big factor in many people deciding to leave the church. They find that the church is just completely out of step and out of touch with normal views on these subjects.

In the Middle Ages, the church was deeply embedded in the lives of all people; their views on morality, cosmology, philosophy, were universally believed. These days, the churches are marginal organisations; they have very little influence on what people believe in terms of social and sexual morality, in terms of explanations for the origins of the universe. Church morality has been superseded by more logical, and more moral, forms of thinking (such as that gay people should not be persecuted, and that the world was not created in seven days by a sky dictator)
Can't rep but agree 100%
11. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
Huh? Conservatives are the ones who have lost and aren't coming to grips with it?

So who elected Trump? Why did we leave the EU? Why are the conservatives with Thatcher-wannabe leading the UK again with huge poll leads above Corbyn? Why were the two favourites for the French election far-right (although one has been hurt by a scandal)? Why was the deeply far-right Norbert Hofer very nearly elected as Austrian president?

Its (thankfully) becoming a more secular conservatism, yes, but it is still conservatism.
They aren't the young though. Look at evidence for Brexit re age.

I agree it is conservatism (some almost further right than that ie National Front, UKIP, Austrian far-right party) but through 'change' politics.

Our Tory party is 'old establishement', not like Trump.

Corbyn is pretty left so hardly an appealing alternative for many.

We should see Lib Dem gains in 2020 (on back of remain voters, see by-election in London for Zack Goldsmith's old seat for an example) and if they gain handsomely enough it may be enough to stop tories short of majority meaning coalition or minority rule. Either way compromise.

You could argue UKIP could help the tories on that situation but i shudder at that prospect, we must remain optimistic
12. I was born in 1999 and would say I'm a millennial even though some don't class me as one I've barely missed the bracket and grew up with much the same as the youngest in the generation. I'm not gonna lie the ultra liberalism in recent years has crossed the lines on many events and I can see why younger people might retract against it but if anything it seems the younger people are getting more and more liberal and more socialist I don't think many under 18s are fans of the alt-right and these anti liberal movements or the extreme government cuts, quite the opposite actually.

I don't think they'll be as progressive as the millennial generation but I think anyone in the UK who went to school under a labour government realised just how much of a great thing it was, we used to decide in a school/year group referendum on how to spend extra money. Now our school looks and asks us how to make cuts and always complains about lack of funding, we don't even get textbooks and many departments won't even give us exercise books insisting we bring our own. The government made a HUGE mistake with these GCSE and a level reforms, the true struggle of schools will come out soon and it'll be a crisis so that generation is screwed, by time the mid bracket gets to university god knows how they'll cope.. the point is that generation Z is still young and is being influenced by the older generations as they diminish their future prospects while milenals were lucky enough to be ruled by a generation concerned about our future, probably the generation with the most investment ever so I think when miliemals start holding key public offices and form most of the electorate, things will change a lot. 10-20 years down the line and things will return to a more community based style of things of sharing, investment and opportunity creation...
13. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
Huh? Conservatives are the ones who have lost and aren't coming to grips with it?

So who elected Trump? Why did we leave the EU? Why are the conservatives with Thatcher-wannabe leading the UK again with huge poll leads above Corbyn? Why were the two favourites for the French election far-right (although one has been hurt by a scandal)? Why was the deeply far-right Norbert Hofer very nearly elected as Austrian president?

Its (thankfully) becoming a more secular conservatism, yes, but it is still conservatism.
It's mainly down to the older generations, I hate saying it but the data shows it. Especially when you look into the reasons for why they voted e.g younger people might've voted trump for his promise of helping the working class, creating jobs, tackle security threats and invest in poor cities while the older generations are likely to have supported his immigration ban, the wall, gun laws and Smaller government. Not all but there's certainly a correlation and I think when people see these policies aren't as pretty and promising as they hoped to be, a new wave of reformed left wing politics will sweep across as it usually does after periods of right wing leadership. I also don't think it'll be long till America elects its first socialist president (do not even try to tell me Obama was a socialist.)
14. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
But then look at the youth in France, with greater support for the Front National than any other age group. Hungarian youth with Jobbik. The youth support for far-right parties isn't far behind other age groups either for Italy, Greece, Poland, Are the British youth really so different from their continental cohort, or was Brexit not necessarily a conservative-liberal split?
Unemployment for the young in those aforementioned countries is incredibly high. No wonder they've gone to the extremes.

Yes, our youth are different.
Our youth are not more liberal than the youth of the 60s/70s say imo but it's hard to judge.

The young did not vote for Brexit. In Scotland the greatest votes for YES were in the younger age groups, voting yes was not the conservative choice.

So since we don't have very high levels of youth unemployment, certainly nothing compared with Spain, France and Greece, then our youth have nit turned authoritarian.

As i've said before, there is no policy evidence that we are less liberal.
Abortion, Gay marriage, Drugs, attitudes to alcohol consumption (which is a drug but society seems to see it differently) etc.
15. (Original post by Mathemagicien)
No. Unemployment is not so high in Poland or Hungary (long term youth unemployment is similar or lower level to the UK). It is the quality of jobs that is bad. Remember, real wages have fallen almost as much in the UK as Greece; the quality of our youths' jobs deteriorated hugely. So why didn't our youth also turn towards fascism?

Spanish youth haven't turned towards fascists, afaik, they turned towards Podemos, a populist left-wing party.

Do you have polling data that shows that say Austria's youth (under 25s) were voting strongly for the far-right candidate?

Same question for Poland and Hungary.

Our youth hasn't turned to the right because it doesn't reflect our values. Pro EU, liberal, Democracy, tolerance etc.

I said authoritarian, not fascist. Although perhaps i meant extreme rather than authoritarian.

You're putting up many straw men here but the point stands that the UK youth are not conservative. It's the over 40s and particularly over 50s that voted for Brexit. The over 50s were the only age group to vote NO in the Scottish referendum according to polling also.
Not slating NO here and national identity was extremely important too but conservatives votes NO by huge majority and that was the older generation.

Even under the present increasingly right-wing Tory government...

Are there any plans to illegalise abortion? No.
Repeal Gay marriage? No.
Reduce LGBT rights? No.
Some pressure to legalise cannabis? Yes but it'll be unsuccessful but medical marijuana is now legal in Germany and Ireland recently passed a bill.

Mental health - we have seen big strides forward in attitude etc.

Religion has fallen here and this has led to these improvements.

The rise of the right generally is a result of the right very successfully creating scapegoats and playing on people's fears. 'Immigrants are taking your jobs' etc. It isn't traditional 'conservatism' per se.
16. (Original post by AlexanderHam)
If you want to see some plausible statistics, here's a start.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/...-sex-marriage/

Those born after 1980 overwhelmingly favour gay marriage (73%). In fact, in the millenial age bracket even a majority of Republicans support gay marriage. There is a clear relationship between age demographic and likelihood of supporting gay marriage; the generations who largely opposed it tooth and nail are dying off, and those who largely support it are now coming into positions of power.

Increasingly, people who oppose it are considered weird and eccentric (at best, and crackpot bigots at worst). It goes to show how badly triggered Christian conservatives are by their devastating defeat on this issue that some of them are still trying to fight this issue even as the fact of fighting it ensures they become ever more discredited in the public eye and the churches continue to decline in membership.

In fact, the number of people who go to church on Sunday is miniscule. 1.4% of the population go to Anglican services on sundays on a regular basis. A similar (though likely smaller) proportion go to Catholic services. I would be surprised if it's more than one-in-twenty, or 5%, who go to any kind of Christian service on a sunday.

The Christian conservatives like ladbants who desperately want to believe that there is some kind of conservative backlash coming (they've predicted this for every generation since the 1960s) are increasingly like those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out in the jungles "fighting" the Americans in the 1970s, thirty years after World War 2 ended. The war is over, we won, you lost. Try to get to grips with it. Though either way, we don't really care what you think; we don't live by your warrant and your permission anymore, and your approval is irrelevant to us.

Unistudent77 (thought you might appreciate this viewpoint)
One doesn't need to attend weekly church services in order to be a Christian. Over 40% of the country still identifies as Christian. The war is not over, and we don't need to 'get to grips with it'. This country has been Christian for generations, we want to keep it that way.
17. (Original post by Unistudent77)

Our youth hasn't turned to the right because it doesn't reflect our values. Pro EU, liberal, Democracy, tolerance etc.

Even under the present increasingly right-wing Tory government...

Are there any plans to illegalise abortion? No.
Repeal Gay marriage? No.
Reduce LGBT rights? No.
Some pressure to legalise cannabis? Yes but it'll be unsuccessful but medical marijuana is now legal in Germany and Ireland recently passed a bill.

Mental health - we have seen big strides forward in attitude etc.

Religion has fallen here and this has led to these improvements.
Too many people think the right's policies are only banning abortions and homosexuality while starting wars with brown people.
Generation Z will be by far the most fiscally conservative in a while because the previous generations are going to give them the bill for all the money they've borrowed to give themselves pensions and healthcare. Not only are they not going to get all that free stuff but they're going to have to pay for it as well. They get a raw deal from the irresponsible left and won't be able to afford to live under the same delusions of the previous generations.
18. (Original post by asdfg323)
Too many people think the right's policies are only banning abortions and homosexuality while starting wars with brown people.
Generation Z will be by far the most fiscally conservative in a while because the previous generations are going to give them the bill for all the money they've borrowed to give themselves pensions and healthcare. Not only are they not going to get all that free stuff but they're going to have to pay for it as well. They get a raw deal from the irresponsible left and won't be able to afford to live under the same delusions of the previous generations.
The doscussion was moved towards socially conservative policies and issues by previous posters.

I do actually agree with what you say economically and i'm not a left-winger. The 'baby boomers' have screwed us over and have enjoyed the most. As a result, my generation and those younger than me ie generation Z will probably not have those same luxuries and we may well be more economically conservative as a result
19. Generation rebelling against the previous shocker.
20. (Original post by Vesniep)
Liberalism is dying
Absolute nonsense. If you knew the first thing about politics, you'd realise it.

Liberalism isn't dying; liberalism hasn't existed in this country. Classical Liberalism, of a variety you've never been exposed to, advocates individual rights; progressivism, the ideology you subscribe to, advocates collective rights, technocracy, statism, the erosion of social power (in favour of state power) and what it nefariously deems 'the common good.'

It was the progressives who advocated, in the 1920s, in favour of pro-white eugenics. They were the same people - feminists, academics, legal professionals, journalists, etc. - who claim to be 'progressive' in the modern age; they deemed certain people (non-white) were too 'unfit', 'uneducated' and 'imbecilic' to participate in the democratic process. They sterilised them.

How did they justify this? They invoked Darwinism and natural selection. Their policies served as a direct blueprint for National Socialist policies on eugenics during WW2.

This was in America, against a 'progressive' backdrop in the UK where men like H.G. Wells, of the progressive variety people like you subscribe to, advocating, I quote, 'liberal fascism.'

The same dynamic exists today, except the 'scientific' progressives deem it's the white man who is 'genetically inferior' and should be 'diversified' owed to his predisposition to warfare.

Progressivism doesn't believe in anything (except cultural and moral relativism); you're just too politically naive to see it, largely because you, like many of your in-group, deem the political process exists merely to signal your virtue and advance your social status ('look how right-on I am').

Progressivism's opposition to sexism stops at the border of female perpetrators and male victims, its opposition to racism stops at the border of white victims or non-white perpetrators, its opposition to homophobia stops at the border of its political objectives (particularly communist tyrants), its opposition to xenophobia stops at the border of hating western nation-states and its advocacy of women's rights stops at the border of Islam.

It's why women like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a regular on the BBC's political programming, can get away with making the following comment about white men: 'I dislike them. I hope they're a lost species in one hundred years.'

It's why the Independent can get away with publishing posts entitled 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again.' It's why the BBC can get away with writing articles entitled 'do we need men?'

It's why Lena Dunham, a woman who was prominent on Hillary Clinton's campaign trail, can get away with tweets calling for the extinction of white men. It's why Harvard professors can get away with calling to, I quote, 'abolish the white race.'

Of course, shift the identity in any of this and it would be met by their own calls of a 'return to fascism.'

It has NOTHING to do with liberalism, a simple glance at their rhetoric and their history (they always re-brand, eg, if they aren't progressive they are communist, if they aren't communist they are 'liberal', if they aren't liberal they are 'social democrats'; they just screw everything up and re-brand for the next generation) would tell you that; it has everything to do with exploiting identity as a proxy for class warfare.

It started predominantly around the time of second-wave feminism, where the women who were fighting for what they deemed to be 'women's rights' determined women were the new proletariat and men were the new bourgeoisie.

Of course, the woman who spearheaded the transition of feminism to a second-wave (Betty Friedan), and pioneered the notion of the 'personal is political', was a communist. From this, identity, not individuality, was prioritised. You aren't an individual who happens to be a woman, you are a woman. We don't talk about human rights, we talk about 'minority rights'; we don't talk about equality, we talk about 'equality for women.'

The 'new proletariat' (non-white, non-British/American, non-heterosexual, women, non-Christian, etc.) was born, and it would be employed to divide classical liberals along identity lines (by pitting them against the 'new bourgeoisie', eg, white men). Why? The same reason communists do anything - power, internationalism and global government. A communist will always have far more in common with a communist on the other side of the world than they do with their own citizens.

In this framework, all in-group unity (eg, the nation-state) is deemed 'oppressive' and all weakness is deemed a virtue. It defies any biological imperative to protect one's own group, and will eventually result in societal deconstruction. The worst part is, you deem it 'liberal.'

The distinction between these perspectives (eg, human rights vs. minority rights) is the distinction between liberalism and anti-liberalism. 90% of Trump voters are classical liberals who are sick to death of the accentuation and repetition of social misdemeanours when perpetrated by 'white men', but the complete omission, or contextualisation or rationalisation of the precise equivalent or worse behaviours perpetrated by the 'new proletariat.'

All of it is one giant proxy for usurpation of power, and those who ape the progressive rhetoric know very little about what they do, particularly the ramification of a culturally relativist approach. As far as the progressives are concerned, it's 'racist' or 'ethnocentric' to judge another's culture; this same framework is one which, when extended, would refuse to interfere with a National Socialist's right to perpetrate the holocaust.

Is that the moral framework you want to live by?

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 25, 2017
Today on TSR

### Exam Jam 2018

Join thousands of students this half term

Poll
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines