Whats wrong with Liberalism? Do you like it?

[PC2]

Yet the constantly and conveniently forget the rest of the amendments like the 14th.

Always being born a US citizen here? I've always liked the idea. I think it helps build comradery between people born here, as opposed to foreign born.

[Anevers]

Always being born a US citizen here? I've always liked the idea. I think it helps build comradery between people born here, as opposed to foreign born.

While that is all and good I am referring to the part where it:

forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/o...amendment.html

[PC2]

While that is all and good I am referring to the part where it:

Everybody is equal, no special treatment for snowflakes.

[Derpleton]

Some socially liberal policies are fine I.E. Same-Sex Marriage. I find myself to be more of a classical liberal and I think this quote pretty much sums it up "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." and essentially just want less government interference. That being said the "liberal" progressives who want their safe-space anti-free speech zones, suicidal multicultural and globalist policies are what I do not like.

[May90]

[video=youtube;lpuS7_NPv6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpuS7_NPv6U[video]

I think my general dislike of "progressiveness," as a general trend, is that question of "could we?" and not enough "Should we?"

It hardly is what progressiveness is about though. Progressiveness is basically not being stuck on the old ideas and constantly trying to replace them with better ideas. Not all new ideas are better ideas, of course, and to determine that, we need to ask exactly "Should we?". A progressive person should be constantly asking this question, otherwise they are not as much progressive as aggressive.

There would be nothing progressive in, say, legalizing rape.

This is a pointless and incorrect semantic argument.

It is not. By defining liberalism the wrong way, people get agitated against what liberalism really means as well. Language works in a funky way... When people dismiss liberal values without understanding that they have nothing to do with that "liberalism" they so strongly despise, then people like Trump come out of the closet and gain popularity. Because who needs equal rights and liberties, when evil immigrants and political correctness are destroying the country, right?

[unbound]

Whats wrong with being open to change? Whats wrong with evolving? Its in our nature. We change everyday, at every second. Being open to new values and ideals makes you revolutionize tomorrow, once people have noticed change being the subject in several places [such as having minorities as main characters and the majority as side/minor characters] people will be more open and loving about it. If you stay at one place for too long, things eventually will go down hill [look at this election and stuff going on!]. Equality, Rights for all and etc is MANDATORY in a country like America. Do you like Liberalism?

There is nothing inherently wrong with Liberalism or Conservatism. Change for change sake is just as stupid as not changing because it's just always been done that way. It is good to have an open mind, but you have to be careful not to have your mind so open that your brain falls out.

What is important is that there is real discussion about the pros and cons of every change as well as the pros and cons of not changing. The real problem currently is that the vast majority of discussions for either are filled with hyperbole and straw man arguments...or outright stupidity and lies.

[Deleted]

You are talking about Progressives. Not real Liberals. Liberals have nothing to do with authoritarian BS. Still they are called Liberals by americans for some reason.

[Theodarzna]

It hardly is what progressiveness is about though. Progressiveness is basically not being stuck on the old ideas and constantly trying to replace them with better ideas. Not all new ideas are better ideas, of course, and to determine that, we need to ask exactly "Should we?". A progressive person should be constantly asking this question, otherwise they are not as much progressive as aggressive.

There would be nothing progressive in, say, legalizing rape.

It absolutely is a thing, what constitutes a "better idea," is it better because in your minds eye you see it as such? You see it working out as such? That is the problem, you blindly believe exactly what you wish to do is so obviously perfect that mere thought of negatives isn't even considered. That video is apt as fuck.

[Super Kami Dende]

there is nothing inherently WRONG with liberalism. The issue is the people that go too far with it and end up becoming everything they say they are against.

I.e. the Far Left.

Equality in Laws is a good thing, but Humans as a Whole will never be Equal in everything, thus a lot of the stupid shit people complain about in the name of Equality is pointless.

Too many people would rather bring people down to make eachother equal instead of raising everyone up.

The World is in the participation Medal phase, where regardless of if you are fucking horrible at something people will still pander to your useless ass.

[Jeezy911]

The problem with liberalism is that by it's very nature, it's always looking for the next thing to be outraged by. Nothing is ever solved or good enough for the activist side, thus why there will always be race problems because liberals don't actually want to fix the issues that generate money. In fact, I would argue that there are people that actually hope there are minorities killed by the police because it keeps them employed. (Al Sharpton)

[May90]

It absolutely is a thing, what constitutes a "better idea," is it better because in your minds eye you see it as such? You see it working out as such? That is the problem, you blindly believe exactly what you wish to do is so obviously perfect that mere thought of negatives isn't even considered. That video is apt as fuck.

That really depends on the person and the idea. Just because some ideas we see as better aren't actually better, doesn't mean the principle of striving for better ideas is wrong/misguided. And an objective person will always think of negatives as well; the smartest people will try to attack their idea from all possible angles, to see how it holds up.

[Joresh]

liberals don't believe in liberalism

[Theodarzna]

That really depends on the person and the idea. Just because some ideas we see as better aren't actually better, doesn't mean the principle of striving for better ideas is wrong/misguided. And an objective person will always think of negatives as well; the smartest people will try to attack their idea from all possible angles, to see how it holds up.

The principle is in practice wrong because it leaves one blinded to being wrong. The judgement I cast is simply a tendency to strive without questioning if this is a good idea or not.

I see little if any such questioning.

[ItachiZaku]

I like many aspects of it, I'm Green after all. There are things I disagree with, but generally I don't give a fuck about anyones preferences or skin color. Assess each person on their own merits, not some bullshit.

[zenkai]

The problem with Liberalism is the same problem with Conservatism, some people go to the extreme. A rational person should balance themselves in the middle.

[Tijuana]

Whats wrong with being open to change? Whats wrong with evolving? Its in our nature. We change everyday, at every second. Being open to new values and ideals makes you revolutionize tomorrow, once people have noticed change being the subject in several places [such as having minorities as main characters and the majority as side/minor characters] people will be more open and loving about it. If you stay at one place for too long, things eventually will go down hill [look at this election and stuff going on!]. Equality, Rights for all and etc is MANDATORY in a country like America. Do you like Liberalism?

AMG this post is ADORABLE! Look guy, conservative doesn't mean "no change", ok? You should hit up a Wikipedia article or two because you somehow were not educated as to what the core words mean that you are discussing.

[paralleluniverse]

To talk about liberalism as being about change, and conservatism as being oppose to it, is completely facile and fruitless.

Liberals don't propose change for the sake of change.

No liberal, or anyone, says I'm for Social Security because I am pro-change. No conservative says I oppose Social Security because I'm opposed to change. That would be absurd. So this is a completely inane dimension to discuss this difference in political philosophy.

A better description is conservatism is about small government, whereas liberalism is about using government to do things that are better done collectively, and having a welfare state.

A liberal would say I'm for Social Security because I believe government should support the welfare of retirees. A conservative would say that I oppose Social Security because I oppose big government redistributing my tax dollars.

[May90]

The principle is in practice wrong because it leaves one blinded to being wrong. The judgement I cast is simply a tendency to strive without questioning if this is a good idea or not.

I see little if any such questioning.

I don't see why this has to be the case. It depends purely on the person's self-critical ability and intellectual honesty.

[melodramocracy]

But it is better than conservatism which just look to bring back the baron that owns everything and the rest of us are just slaves to the top 0.001%

You aren't slaves to the top .001, you're slaves to your own economic machine, which serves a far wider swath of people. The top .001% are the fortunate, are handed money willingly by those below them rather than taking it by force, and they exist in any political / economic structure you'd care to come up with, for a variety of reasons.

[paralleluniverse]

You aren't slaves to the top .001, you're slaves to your own economic machine, which serves a far wider swath of people. The top .001% are the fortunate, are handed money willingly by those below them rather than taking it by force, and they exist in any political / economic structure you'd care to come up with, for a variety of reasons.

The economic and political system, and hence the acquisition of insane wealth, is not a law of nature nor handed down by God. Instead it is created by government, and rigged by the Top 0.1% in their interest.

Property rights, patents, monopoly power, taxation, trade agreements are political choices made by government and they determine the wealth of the richest people and economic inequality. These policy choices are shaped by the Top 0.1% to their benefit.