I'm feeling very disillusioned with liberalism right now

Post Reply New Topic

Thank goodness I hardly ever watch any of the news.

So, basically, conservatives are basically into stuff that's considered "pleasant", and highly opposes those who don't support it?

And liberals are basically into stuff that's considered "unpleasant", and highly opposes those who don't support it?

Am I correct on this? If not, then what's the best analogy for this?

I think conservatives are only into stories that paint liberals in a bad light and liberals are only into stories thar paint conservatives in a bad light.

The weird thing about this statement, is that in my country these are literally the same thing, the conservative party is the Liberal party. The Left wing party is called Labour, which historically has been made up of union people. My thought on it is that the party of liberalism became one for conservative empowerment of business owners, while the Labour party of the workers wanted the protection and equality of all, the little guy, and this is how they separated.

So when you make a statement of liberals of conservatives, you also have to consider in what way. Are you talking about the liberal freedom for all groups to be treated fairly, which can mean often needing to make autoreactive declarations to change society into a fair place? Or are you talking about liberal freedoms to allow all businesses and the rich to do whatever they want, which can mean a conservative change to society?

Because I want to make it clear that can we agree that things suck and are not actually fair right now? Some people think that problem can be fixed by capitalism methods of let the market decide, while others think that a socialist method is the way to go, by using the government. And in all honesty, as someone who loves learning about finance, marketing and business ventures, the market be a piss poor method of bringing about change, especially where the market be influenced by people at the top through their control of media and being the arbiters of what gets pushed forward, benefiting them. Not like government control has always worked out, you get a bunch of people who think they know what they are doing, but really do things for political reasons, where they tell people what they want, and before long you get the authoritarian Soviet Union collapse with their economy.

The only right answer is to understand that you need a balance, to have people freely support what they want in a market, allowing it to react to them, but watched over by a government that stops anyone from trying to monopolize the markets, and that everyone's basic needs are met. Either side of political scale can be bad at this, and you need to look to the individuals who seem genuine at being able reinforce what needs to be done. But you have sides so set on proving the other side as idiots, that it is just a big pissing match of winning points. Excuse yourself from that if you see it, but ignorance is not an answer.

But hey, perhaps I am biased. I live off of a pension despite being fairly young. Been unemployed all year, and everyone would call me a lazy git because of those facts, despite the mountains of job applications I do, the agency I work with, and the fact that I have a Bachelor and came off of a year with whatever part time job I could get as I also did a year and a half of unpaid volunteer data entry work. That my disability would make it incredibly difficult to take something like a retail job, which I can only assume is the reason no one will hire me for the jobs I could be productive in. As if they think I am perfectly happy in a depressing life where my lack of financial progress has me refuse to do things like date until I actually become employed.

So yeah, I am not such a fan of the people who want everyone to fend for themselves, because I think it is incredibly cruel.

A good part of the craziness is due to the structure of today's social media, especially Twitter. In any very large, fast-moving, unmoderated or loosely-moderated forum, even the most reasonable viewpoint turns easily into a really nasty mob mentality.

It's unfair to judge any idea by the behavior of its Twitter choir. So, in my opinion, it's best to stay off of Twitter and discuss politics only in small, well-moderated, relatively non-echo-chamber-prone forums.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 01 Nov 2019, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Really? What on Earth gives you that idea? I've never heard of a liberal or progressive who supported Sarah Palin for VP, for example.


Can you cite a specific example of even one person who claimed that every man who did not support Clinton must have been motivated solely or primarily by sexism, or that every white who did not support Obaman must have been motivated solely or primarily by racism? I've never heard such a claim. What I have heard -- and am inclined to agree with -- is that sexism and racism were motivating factors among a substantial number of their opponents. Do you not think that's the case?


Progressives often criticize whites and men not for being white or male per se, but for being blinded by (relative) privilege.

Just as most NT's have no idea what it's like to be autistic -- unless they've put a lot of effort into studying the subject, and, even then, many of them still just don't get it -- so, too, most white people have very little understanding of both the historical and current experiences of black people.

Most white people, furthermore, have no particular need or desire to learn about the situation of black people, because their survival and social advancement doesn't (for the most part) depend on having such knowledge (whereas the social advancement of black people does, in most cases, depend on familiarity with white culture). Hence white people tend to lack empathy for black people, hence may inadvertantly behave in ways that reinforce the racist status quo even without being intentionally racist.

The fact that (most) white people don't need to understand black culture and experience, whereas (most) black people do need to understand white culture and experience, is one of the things that is meant by the term "white privilege." Much of so-called "political correctness" is an attempt to even the playing field in this regard.

I consider all of the above progressive ideas to be reasonable.

Unfortunately, like other reasonable ideas (including neurodiversity), the above progressive ideas can all too easily get turned into very nasty mob mentalities on Twitter and other massive social media, as I said in my previous post. But that's not a reason to reject the ideas themselves; it's just a reason to stay off of Twitter and other highly echo-chamber-y social media.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 01 Nov 2019, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do see your points, but I stand by my feelings on liberals. I no longer trust them any more than I do Trump supporters or conservatives. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of tearing this country apart and I'm not going to be coerced or guilted into picking a side.

I guess my biggest problem is I believe everything idiots and as*holes say on the internet.

It's getting to where I just don't want to believe anything anymore...

Also if what I said came across as racist or sexist I just want to apologize. I still don't like Obama or Hillary, but I think I was in the wrong with what I said.

You realize that this is specifically a technique by some people in politics, the keep muddying the water, so you have no idea what to trust anymore. It is how it seems that you country literally had to commit a crime as clear as on record withholding money appropriated by other areas of the government for the purpose to extort power against a political opponent, for him actually start to be held responsible. And yet as it is happening you having one side trying to muddy the water by outright lying, as if there was not something already released by your president that was damning.

You have people on your Left that already pointed that Medicare for all would save everyone on purpose, because it would cut out the unnecessary for profit insurance companies for basic health needs, with everyone getting it. With perhaps just some of the rich who don't need the money as much as the poor that need everything they have. The Koch Brother study into it even showed that would save, because people would pay less than they did to the insurance companies instead to the government, and yet people still try to obfuscate those facts. You have people high on the Democratic party even who don't support it, most who take money from big companies, so of course there is self inflicted water muddying by sides.

I am not going to pretend to know what crazy peoples posts you are seeing on social media, but it really can just be a platform where sides could try to control the message of their opponents by bringing attention to the radicals, and pretend things like Black Lives Matter means kill the police, or Met Too means all men are rapists. You have people who have entire methods being to trick you into thinking they are saying something smart by talking fast, and doing things like never play defence.

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproj ... F601264%2F

Most people believe in whatever benefits themselves or their families.

There’s very little ideological basis in the political beliefs of most people.

Many people voted for Trump in 2016, in my opinion, because he’s not Hillary Clinton. And he was a reality TV star and some believe a shrewd businessman. And because his rhetoric is “America First.” Trump doesn’t even have a consistent political ideology.

I always believed him being a reality TV star played a big part in this.

Americans really do believe that their celebrities can do no wrong and should be allowed to get away with anything. Just look at the people who still defend rapists like Bill Cosby or Kevin Spacey. When Christina Crawford revealed that her mother Joan Crawford was abusing the hell out of her people today treat that like it's all a big joke.

All of mainstream politics, including what people in the US would call liberalism, ignores one key idea that I think would improve everybody's lives - workplace democracy and worker self-management.

Why, as a society, do we claim to love freedom and democracy, but when it comes to economics, allow a minority of people to control what we do, how long for, and for how much money?

Giving employees some control over the companies they work for would threaten the profits of the people in power, so they do everything in their power (a lot of it) to discredit the idea, and prevent it from being implemented.