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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Respect used to mean one thing but now they mean letting anyone into your country, and applying postmodern social theory to all the people in your country and these new people which means all groups need to be equalised. It isn’t exactly a conservative thing. (Obviously that’s not what happens in practise but it’s what liberals want and that conservatives pretend to want as they feel obligated to conform to postmodern social theory).

    The point is that politics in the West is driven my post modern social theory (see my Scientific American link above). This theory is thankfully under challenge in America however in this country Conservatives are against it. It pay lip service to it. Liberals don’t even realise that there is such a debate and you can actually reasonably think in terms outside of their own. They think any challenge to postmodern social theory is some kind of fascist thing, a dark element haunting from the past, or the product of a conspiracy theory.

    In short, the reason that the theory of the liberals is wrong is because they want to believe that all groups are created equally by nature (which is not true) and/or simultaneously you need to make all groups equal (which negated their first premise), and that history and biology are prisons which create equality, therefore you need to negate history and biology, which you of course cannot.
    So your point is that we shouldn't treat people the same way based on race/religion etc?
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    It depends whether you think tolerance and respect towards those who are different is a bad thing, surely moving forward socially is a good thing? The Conservative Party are hardly liberal by modern standards.
    Is tolerance and respect also due to those who's conscience tells them to take traditional views, for example that marriage should be between a man and woman?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    So your point is that we shouldn't treat people the same way based on race/religion etc?
    To respond to that specific point I think people should have individuals liberty and freedom of speech and be able to respond to people how they chose to whether that is positive, negative or neutral. I don’t think we need identity politics to put everyone in groups and try and make these groups equal. I will respond to someone as an individual not a group. I don’t want a dictatorial state telling me that I will like everyone. I will chose who I like. If there is a group that is not liked then let them be disliked and they can leave. That’s called freedom, its the free market, voting with your feet, the free market of social interactions, simple as. I certainly don’t like social policy built on measuring outcomes the trying to regulate people to make these outcomes equal. We say what happened with the communist experiment.

    First you lose your objectivity (you start ignoring pedophiles of certain ethnicities out of fear of being called racist), then you lose truth (race and gender are social constructs), then you lose your freedom (imprison people for tweets which offend liberals - “oppressor” groups slating oppressed group only and not vice versa).
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Is tolerance and respect also due to those who's conscience tells them to take traditional views, for example that marriage should be between a man and woman?
    Of course it is, people are entitled to their views so long as they aren't hurting anyone
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    To respond to that specific point I think people should have individuals liberty and freedom of speech and be able to respond to people how they chose to whether that is positive, negative or neutral. I don’t think we need identity politics to put everyone in groups and try and make these groups equal. I will respond to someone as an individual not a group. I don’t want a dictatorial state telling me that I will like everyone. I will chose who I like. If there is a group that is nit liked then let them be disliked and they can leave. That’s called freedom, its the free market, voting with your feet, the free market of social interactions, simple as. I certainly don’t like social policy built on measuring outcomes the trying to regulate people to make these outcomes equal. We say what happened with the communist experiment.

    First you lose your objectivity (you start ignoring pedophiles of certain ethnicities out of fear of being called racist), then you lose truth (race and gender are social constructs), then you lose your freedom (imprison people for tweets which offend liberals - “oppressor” groups slating oppressed group only and not vice versa).

    Oh and don’t forget, it’s going to prevent another Holocaust (this is one of the messages in the subconscious of liberals).
    Agreed, individuals should retain those rights, however I don't think that the government should discriminate against different groups based on race/religion/sexuality and so on
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    Agreed, individuals should retain those rights, however I don't think that the government should discriminate against different groups based on race/religion/sexuality and so on
    I also don’t think the government should discriminate between people based on race / religion etc.

    Most of these liberal left people want to discriminate. In the culture wars in America the central issue is political correctness and positive discrimination. The democrat aligned people want to go for PC and affirmative action policies and the right (Trump and co) wants to remove any PC and state discrimination (positive discrimination as the left calls it) from politics. I think most of the liberal left are just so bigoted against conservatives that they aren’t even capable of properly having a clear debate. The liberal left as I said are hooked on delusional world view where groups are both created equally and need to be made equal, hence they need PC and discrimination to perpetuate their delusion.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    We certainly do have a problem with disaffected angry right wing men and violence. It is only last year than a MP was murdered in the street. This week we see a guy charged with encouragement to commit murder against another Labour MP.

    That said, most of the men on the angry modern right pose no threat. They tend to nothing more than effete keyboard warriors who rant about their victimhood, fake news, cultural Marxism, and how feminism is responsible for their sexual failings.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    I also don’t think the government should discriminate between people based on race / religion etc.

    Most of these liberal left people want to discriminate. In the culture wars in America the central issue is political correctness and positive discrimination. The democrat aligned people want to go for PC and affirmative action policies and the right (Trump and co) wants to remove any PC and state discrimination (positive discrimination as the left calls it) from politics. I think most of the liberal left are just so bigoted against conservatives that they aren’t even capable of properly having a clear debate. The liberal left as I said are hooked on delusional world view where groups are both created equally and need to be made equal, hence they need PC and discrimination to perpetuate their delusion.
    On your first point we roughly agree

    You keep bringing up America for some reason? They are very different politically to the rest of the West

    Anyway, I'm tired and I have work tomorrow so I'll call it a night, have a nice night mate
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    Of course it is, people are entitled to their views so long as they aren't hurting anyone
    Excellent, you sound like a truly tolerant liberal, unlike many who call themselves liberals.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    We certainly do have a problem with disaffected angry right wing men and violence. It is only last year than a MP was murdered in the street. This week we see a guy charged with encouragement to commit murder against another Labour MP.

    That said, most of the men on the angry modern right pose no threat. They tend to nothing more than effete keyboard warriors who rant about their victimhood, fake news, cultural Marxism, and how feminism is responsible for their sexual failings.
    Aye.

    At times this place resembles the comment section of the Daily Mail. Lots of angry young men on here with a serious victim mentality.

    Though as to the question, a good chunk of people on here have called Corbyn 'far-left' for wanting to renationalise key industries. In fact they tend to call anything left of centre far-left or Marxist. Remember when Miliband was called Marxist for waning a freeze in energy prices?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    We certainly do have a problem with disaffected angry right wing men and violence. It is only last year than a MP was murdered in the street. This week we see a guy charged with encouragement to commit murder against another Labour MP.

    That said, most of the men on the angry modern right pose no threat. They tend to nothing more than effete keyboard warriors who rant about their victimhood, fake news, cultural Marxism, and how feminism is responsible for their sexual failings.
    Lol, you took the words right out of my mouth. As demonstrated here with multiple pages of drivel littered with every buzzword imaginable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Lol, you took the words right out of my mouth. As demonstrated here with multiple pages of drivel littered with every buzzword imaginable.
    Probably because you have failed to grasp the arguments being made here, politics with postmodern social theory versus politics without postmodern social theory. This is probably because You’re unable to grasp the subject matter.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Ronald Regan said “Our liberal friends know things that are not.” I would add to this that they don’t seem to know many things things that are or they seem to have formed some kind of cognitive dissonance.

    For example a recent mantra that has circulated around the liberal “Community”, is that the far-right are far worse than the far-left.

    The point I am making is that liberals hold an unjustifiably positive view of the far-left world n relation to the far-right.

    When you mention the spates of bombings in the U.S. in the 1970s by the Weather Underground, they raise you a Nazi Holocaust. Then the natural thing to do is mention to them by 100 million killings under Stalin and Mao.

    Then comes the interesting part they say “you’re just trying to justify it” or “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    No, wrong. The only thing I’m trying to justify is don’t have single minded thinking, learn to accept challenges and learn that the education system, media and politics is always biased and to read through that bias is what you have a mind for.
    Stalin and Mao were right-wing fascists. The actions from these people don't change the ideology, the ideology defines the actions, ideology is stagnant. It's shocking how people don't seem to realise this.

    Perhaps it's because the right-wing usually don't look past the obvious. Salty but true, they're shallow beings usually without education.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Most of them are entirely out of touch with reality because they come from middle class backgrounds, and have never paid taxes or done a hard day's work. The group which calls itself 'Hope not Hate' to evade the electoral commission is so keen to shut down debate and instead have violence and ignorant protest.

    Certainly in the UK the far right is a tiny minority compared to this new "liberal" far-left.
    I'm pretty sure middle class families have to pay taxes and work too xD. And what do you classify as a hard day's work? Just because some people may not toil in a factory all day doesn't make their workdays any less long
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Your conclusion is not logically sound as at least one of your premises is false; not all liberals on the left believe that the far left is universally better than the far right.

    When it comes to the Western world I would argue that the far right has done more harm than the far left. The far left has had relatively little power/influence.

    I wouldn't call the regimes of Stalin or Mao "liberal" either, though economically they were very far to the left.
    Exactly! Liberalism =/= communism
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    The liberal belief that the far left is superior to the far right is just one of their many magical beliefs. They also believe that if something is not on their news networks or newspapers, like their Guardian which never reports nay stories about so called protected groups doing any wrong only non-protected groups doing wrong. E.g. whites oppressing blacks or men oppressing women.

    Take the Hillary Clinton Russia Uranium scandal for example, they don’t see in on the BBC / CNN or in the Guardian then it can’t exist. Roger Stone flipped out at, CNN fake news’s Don Lemon 🍋 for fake news and someone got him banned, For standing up for the truth!!! Then the liberals were tweeting that the person who got him banned probably saved a life. Only a liberal can really understand this. Hey another victory, taking away some more free speech.
    Stating a false premise again doesn't make it true.

    The 'liberal left' isn't some hive mind collective consciousness where everyone thinks the same way. Some liberals think one way, some liberals think another, etc.

    They are generally united under the principles/notions of liberalism but when it comes to specific opinions (such as the one you keep trying to present) people will vary person to person.

    The same goes for the right. Hell, the same goes for any group of people who fall under a broad ideology.

    The rest of your post is babble and has nothing to do with anything. Please stick to an argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Probably because you have failed to grasp the arguments being made here, politics with postmodern social theory versus politics without postmodern social theory. This is probably because You’re unable to grasp the subject matter.
    I can grasp it just fine.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Excellent, you sound like a truly tolerant liberal, unlike many who call themselves liberals.
    I'm a true supporter of liberalism and consider tolerance and respect inflated. I have no respect for any liberticidal policy or authoritarian position, and limited tolerance. but I'll never approve of use of force to prevent people from expressing this idea.

    The original idea of tolerance was no use of violence, oppression and censorship. Tolerance was, in fact, a mere consequence of freedom, which is what liberalism is truly about. It doesn't mean that a liberal must support/approve/respect fascist positions, only that he must support and approve people's right to express these positions.

    Contemporary (il)liberal leftism is based on absolute tolerance and respect of everything, apart from what is perceived as being intolerant. It's a circular reasoning which ended up producing anti-fascist fascists.

    For example, a liberal will approve of people's right to change their sex. However, he might not approve of the act of changing one's sex. On the other hand, an (il)liberal leftist will support transexuality, and hate anyone who doesn't, trying to use force and law to prevent them from expressing this view.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Stating a false premise again doesn't make it true.

    The 'liberal left' isn't some hive mind collective consciousness where everyone thinks the same way. Some liberals think one way, some liberals think another, etc.

    They are generally united under the principles/notions of liberalism but when it comes to specific opinions (such as the one you keep trying to present) people will vary person to person.

    The same goes for the right. Hell, the same goes for any group of people who fall under a broad ideology.

    The rest of your post is babble and has nothing to do with anything. Please stick to an argument.
    Yes everyone is unique but schools of thinking have things in common.

    I am disappointed by your opinion of this thread. Most posts question micro things like individual laws or taxes. In its entirety this thread is questioning the entire ethos and philosophy behind western political thinking. I think simply some people will see value in this and other people will see it as babble because it is high brow and therefore beyond their thinking abilities quite simply.

    I think those people who cannot grasp this debate on a philosophical level try to boil it down to the way one of the camps processes it: disgruntled groups of white middle class men etc.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Is tolerance and respect also due to those who's conscience tells them to take traditional views, for example that marriage should be between a man and woman?
    Absolutely. Nothing wrong with that. But it is when those quiet self-held beliefs come out into the open and are used to prevent others from living the life they choose that it all starts to go wrong.

    It is worth pointing out that someone's opposition to gay marriage is never actually going to affect or impact on the person who holds that belief. One therefore has to wonder why some folks feel so compelled to limit other people's lives. Live and let live and all that. What business is it of anyone to be bothered if two men or women decide to get married? It doesn't affect anyone other than the people involved.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: November 4, 2017
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.