Coffee House The end of liberalism

[Sunseeker]

I'd say the origins of an idea to some extent matter. If the basis of Locke is a wrong view of humans, than much as Marx's wrong view of humans led to issues, Liberalisms view will lead to its own host of issues.

No shit, you're telling us that flawed humans create flawed ideologies? FFFFFFFFFFF man we got a god damn prophet in our midst here!

[Theodarzna]

Welcome to anthropology. You see all theories like Locke's or Rousseau's are based on one view that is definitely not correct. For there is no truth given to us - so obviously this is the way how nihilism or deconstructionism takes out ALL theories. And Locke especially was a hypocrite talking about liberalism while for this very work he got paid by the nobles that traded slaves and land taken from native Americans. You can debunk them all which makes it hilarious to use it as political weapon "to be in one political group and take down another".

The lack of the anthropological context is by the way what Habermas criticized on almost all modern social science theories, but that's also what made them deeper and more complex in terms how you can interpret them. The problem many right-wingers on universities have however is that most theories and teachings that get covered have more or less hidden anthropinism like "human life is holy" which completely shoots down their way of thinking - (social) exclusion.

On a different note: Respect to Endus, you do the fighting in the eternal conflict. Hope you take the color green some day again.

For one, I'm argueing the authors position in the OP. I get the idea, no political philosophy will conform to what humans are. I never once argued one does or even really argued for anything as a utopia that will resolve that tension. My main point here is to discuss an article and author, and that I agree largely with his view that Liberalism's problems are not simply bugs or external glitches, but really systemic to the ideology as any ideology is bound to have.

[NED funded]

Because Theo appears convincing. A cursory read of anything she posts is enough to get people thinking that there might be something really there worth considering.

The problem is: there isn't. It's all a play (a much better one than most of the conserva-trolls here) to spew propaganda and garbage.

I keep her off ignore because I enjoy blowing up that garbage. If I were to ignore her, I personally wouldn't have to deal with her garbage, but she'd be free to trick others into believing it. Like Connal. But if you'll note in my posts: I rebut but I don't engage. That's why she hates my posts. I'm not engaging with her bullshit, I'm simply calling it like it is and she hates that.

I guess its fun to dunk on bullshit, but some users seem to take it very personal quoting him almost every time he posts and having experienced that personally by some user I'm not going to name rn that is annoying and creepy.

[Sunseeker]

I guess its fun to dunk on bullshit, but some users seem to take it very personal quoting him almost every time he posts and having experienced that personally by some user I'm not going to name rn that is annoying and creepy.

Maybe her posts shouldn't all be full of bullshit then?

[Theodarzna]

I can't engage with storytelling.. there's no argument. I've stated all of this already.. there needs to be *real analysis* for me to consider and weigh. You clearly understand the impotence of a statement like "Nah, you're the broken one" and that's exactly my point: storytelling.

I feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding on liberalism, almost contradictory to the point that statements like "liberalism is ending" is made. That statement enters the realm of nonsense without some sort of context to support it.

Deneen has *speculated* and I have no reason to consider the statement "Deneen, Putnam, Murray, etc" any more than you consider "Aurinaux states...".

Right, then the big question is, why post? If the discussion is all nonsense, why are you here?

I would consider Deneen states as a more valid statement than Aurinaux states because, at the end of the day, those are public figures with credentials and records I can confirm and be reasonably certain they say what they mean. Caring what either of us writes is a bit like the time Skroe posted about "The Skroe Doctrine" as if that was a serious thing that actually mattered. Nothing we say here on this forum matters, or can be taken without a grain of salt. You can be shown a ton "real analysis" or not, I could charge that for you "real analysis" is nothing more than, "conform to what I believe" which is rather boring for me. Again, akin to an Evangelical preacher telling me to read the Bible over again but this time "Really read it" as if I had not done it right the first time since obviously through the enchantment of the book itself and proper reading I will instantly fall to my knees and proclaim Jesus is God!

His assertion is that Liberalism is Ending as a recognizable emancipatory project, but doesn't suggest some new ideology is ready to swoop in, or even that the logic is going away in any current living persons lifetime. Which makes me suspect you read the title and posted from that. But again, that would be not giving you the benefit of the doubt and just assuming you actually wanted to have a discussion.

[Deleted]

For one, I'm argueing the authors position in the OP. I get the idea, no political philosophy will conform to what humans are. I never once argued one does or even really argued for anything as a utopia that will resolve that tension. My main point here is to discuss an article and author, and that I agree largely with his view that Liberalism's problems are not simply bugs or external glitches, but really systemic to the ideology as any ideology is bound to have.

He is simply criticizing some points without even trying to go in depth. He uses liberal as a straw-man while ignoring the deeper interdependence all matters he describes have. He also isn't very clear about the term he uses in itself - is it really the term Locke defined, or the one that is more or less canon in nowadays political science? What would the ideal type be and how does our society differ in terms of fundamental life style?

And then there are counter examples: Indigenous people who live without any hierarchy since thousands of years "liberal". It just really makes no sense debating this on such a shallow level. Even less so if you hope to have a "scientific debate".

[Theodarzna]

He is simply criticizing some points without even trying to go in depth. He uses liberal as a straw-man while ignoring the deeper interdependence all matters he describes have. He also isn't very clear about the term he uses in itself - is it really the term Locke defined, or that is more or less canon in nowadays political science? What would the ideal type be and how does our society differ in terms of fundamental life style?

And then there are counter examples: Indigenous people who live without any hierarchy since thousands of years "liberal". It just really makes no sense debating this on such a shallow level. Even less so if you hope to have a "scientific debate".

Aight, Did you read the book? I suppose you are about to lay down everything that is wrong with it here and now and really knock my socks off.

What Indigenous people are we talking about? Can you name these societies and then describe them? I also would remark that North America for example once was home to many indigenous people, whom were ruthlessly exterminated to clear the land for the new Liberal Civilization in the form of the United States. As in to open the land up to the Liberal Marketplace and a distinct regime of law and legal practice versus the various native customary law.

[Deleted]

Aight, Did you read the book? I suppose you are about to lay down everything that is wrong with it here and now and really knock my socks off.

What Indigenous people are we talking about? Can you name these societies and then describe them? I also would remark that North America for example once was home to many indigenous people, whom were ruthlessly exterminated to clear the land for the new Liberal Civilization in the form of the United States. As in to open the land up to the Liberal Marketplace and a distinct regime of law and legal practice versus the various native customary law.

Uff is this a job offer or you just being ridiculous?

Good example that shows how different humans can actually live would be the Piraha. Their culture is so different from ours, even their language is kinda breaking down our current comprehension.

But well, that's not what you want debate about I get it. So let's meet again after we have read all books in each others private libraries (I guarantee we will not meet again before 2030) and finally tackle it down!

[Jastall]

That is because the book is rather expansive and focuses on the core of America as a kind of civilization. If we look at what we are currently doing to the environment or just our birth rates, I'd say we are on the long term road to ruin and at least in the case of the environment we won't get a do over like say Russia did after Marxism.

I'd say the origins of an idea to some extent matter. If the basis of Locke is a wrong view of humans, than much as Marx's wrong view of humans led to issues, Liberalisms view will lead to its own host of issues.

Reality isn't about absolutes. Locke had an interpretation of human nature, Marx had another, Tocqueville had his own, so on and so forth. Trying to ascribe a definite right or wrong is futile, shallow and not worth of much discussion unless one just wanted to bash Communism or Tocqueville's vision of America for instance.

Or, as the case may be, label what one doesn't like as liberalism so it can be freely bashed and blamed for everything.

[Deleted]

One of the many contradictions in the american political landscape is that liberals think the most basic unit of society is the individual; whereas conservatives place it at the family. Yet conservative traditionally endorse an "every man for himself", free like the wind cowboy attitude towards life; whereas liberals think along the lines of leave no man behind, we're all in this together.
They're antagonistic, and "out-groupy", yet complementary. At least if we go by the ideas that they supposedly endorse and not the ghastly caricatures that actual politicians in actual positions of power implement.
That's a set of outgroups that create a workable fabric. These out-groups are, possibly, not needed, but I don't really see much of an issue with them existing.

However, your initial post went a bit further than that. It decried prejudice and exclusivity. Your point would be more easily agreeable if you stopped at prejudice.

In general, anything phraseable as "I am X and you are Y" as opposed to "we are X" is going to end up causing conflict and stress.

There you are taking issue with exclusivity. Which is reminiscent of any casual/elite divide; so it's a pretty standard way to frame anything in a gaming forum. Notably, the elitists tend to form objective oriented communities, whereas casuals just ride along. All in a spectrum, since people play at different degrees of casual-ness. But I digress...

I noted that conservatives hold the family as the most basic unit of society.
Family is one such exclusive, rather closed community. You can develop a liking for the Smiths, and maybe adopt every single one of their family traditions, just like you would the drama club; but you will never be a Smith unless they accept you (through marriage, adoption, or whatever mean).

We could go on to debate how liberals are destroying the nuclear family or whatever nonsense. But I can see how these fears emerge: you're taking issue with exclusive societies while ignoring that some of the most fundamental aspects of human life are exclusive and, in general, do not cause conflict or stress.

Also, @Endus

My family is not defined by its opposition to other groups, we are defined by shared genetic ancestry. My nation is not defined by its opposition to any other nation, but by our shared language, culture, history and in some cases our faith. So the border between a group and those who are not of that group is not truly defined by any opposition to others, but by aspects that unite and forge bonds of mutual solidarity between those in group. Which allows those who are not of our group, to join us, but that requires time and dedication. There is a sizable community of Croats of Islamic faith, and even our Catholic right wing sees them as our own people, part of our "tribe". Why? Because they took the time and the pain to learn our language, history and culture and that is rewarded.

Grand Mufti of Croatian Muslims is prof. dr. Aziz Hasanović. He spoke in the European Parliament, and said publicly that there is no country in Europe that has better integrated and fused its Islamic part of society with the greater whole of Croatian nation.

[downnola]

Yes, Catholics, Baptists and Protestants, despite all being different, are ALL Christian religions.

And if you don't want Christianity, that are three crappy options.

No, the fact that they're different is my goddamn point. There are fundamental differences in their beliefs. If those divergences in belief didn't exist they'd literally fucking be the same.

I'm not disputing that Democrats and Republicans don't share some ideological core values, but there's a distinct divergence in liberal politics in the United States that is on the left. I don't want to plagiarize @Zarc because he detailed what I'm arguing extremely well. I highly recommend you just read his post on the subject.

[Felya]

My family is not defined by its opposition to other groups, we are defined by shared genetic ancestry. My nation is not defined by its opposition to any other nation, but by our shared language, culture, history and in some cases our faith. So the border between a group and those who are not of that group is not truly defined by any opposition to others, but by aspects that unite and forge bonds of mutual solidarity between those in group. Which allows those who are not of our group, to join us, but that requires time and dedication. There is a sizable community of Croats of Islamic faith, and even our Catholic right wing sees them as our own people, part of our "tribe". Why? Because they took the time and the pain to learn our language, history and culture and that is rewarded.

@Ednus is right and you confirm it here. You are saying that you are defined by genetics, but then justify the Muslims in your country, in the contrast to Catholic’s reaction.

[Deleted]

@Ednus is right and you confirm it here. You are saying that you are defined by genetics, but then justify the Muslims in your country, in the contrast to Catholic’s reaction.

What are you on about?

My family shares a genetic ancestry. I did not mention genetics in any relevance to nation.

[Felya]

What are you on about?

My family shares a genetic ancestry. I did not mention genetics in any relevance to nation.

I don’t really care why you mention it, it shows the contrast @Ednus pointed out. You contrasted Muslim’s with Catholics in your country. Muslims, who will never get in, regardless of their learning language, history or culture, because of their genetic make up. Meaning, they are defined in contrasting with other cultures.

I can be born in your country, refuse to learn history or culture. You will never contrast me with Catholics in your country, even if the bar you set is never met.

[Deleted]

Muslims, who will never get in, regardless of their learning language, history or culture, because of their genetic make up

I never said this. Croatian Muslims are Croats, part of our "tribe",

Every family on planet shares a genetic ancestry. If I marry a Croatian Muslim girl, she becomes my family.

- - - Updated - - -

I can be born in your country, refuse to learn history or culture.

I would contrast you with any Croat, but considering you would refuse to learn about Croatian culture, I fail to see why we should we consider you a Croat.

[Felya]

I never said this. Croatian Muslims are Croats, part of our "tribe”

Can one of those Muslims be part of your tribe, based on genetics, as you said about your family? You did say it, I am pointing out that you are not realizing that you did. Your family can believe the opposite of everything you demand of others to be part of your tribe, but they will actually be in it. Meaning that the only difference, is defined by that nation opposition. Your first two sentences of that post are contradicting each other.

My family is not defined by its opposition to other groups, we are defined by shared genetic ancestry. My nation is not defined by its opposition to any other nation, but by our shared language, culture, history and in some cases our faith.

Do you see it? The things your nation is defined by, according to you, is not something your family needs to abide by. It’s only unique to other nations...

Every family on planet shares a genetic ancestry. If I marry a Croatian Muslim girl, she becomes my family.

Yep, without knowing language, history, or culture. That means those things are not as definitive as you claim, but instead points to conflict on nations.

- - - Updated - - -

I would contrast you with any Croat, but considering you would refuse to learn about Croatian culture, I fail to see why we should we consider you a Croat.

Because I am family...

[Deleted]

Can one of those Muslims be part of your tribe, based on genetics, as you said about your family?

Yes.

Family is a group of people who share common genetics, nation is something else, defined by other aspects.

- - - Updated - - -

Because I am family...

You really are not.

[Felya]

Family is a group of people who share common genetics, nation is something else, defined by other aspects.

Yes, now go look at your example of marrying a Muslim. Is she both part and not part of your tribe? She exists in a void between family tribe and nation tribe? Even though they don’t have to meet qualifications you listed of either?

You really are not.

No shit... we are using hypothetical examples... this is not a Star Wars moment... Luke, I am not your father...

[Deleted]

Yes, now go look at your example of marrying a Muslim. Is she both part and not part of your tribe? She exists in a void between family tribe and nation tribe? Even though they don’t have to meet qualifications you listed of either?



No shit... we are using hypothetical examples... this is not a Star Wars moment... Luke, I am not your father...

Yeah, now I am certain you are trolling.

You apparently do not comprehend what a family unit is and what a nation is.

Case closed.

[Macaquerie]

I can understand the appeal of nationalism, to people who feel disempowered and alone in the world, it can give them a sense of purpose and belonging to something greater. But simply making people feel slightly better about themselves doesn't quite make up for all the toxic effects that nationalism can have on a society, because it forces you to sacrifice whatever morals or values you might have to better align with those that the group demands you have, and to form bonds only with people within the "nation" whether you like them or not, at the expense of much more meaningful relationships you might find outside the tribe.