Coffee House The end of liberalism

[JohnBrown1917]

I feel personally attacked I don't fit into enough of these labels yet. I need to sin more.

I can't become a single mom or get an abortion, i'm thoroughly disappointed.


So I just listen to commie emo rap while playing EDGEKILLER MURDERFUCK MASSACRE 2000 and directing a gay porno about premarital sex. Its the best I can do.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

I can't become a single mom or get an abortion, i'm thoroughly disappointed.


So I just listen to commie emo rap while playing EDGEKILLER MURDERFUCK MASSACRE 2000 and directing a gay porno about premarital sex. Its the best I can do.

If I point out I had gender reassignment surgery on the 25th do I win?

[Milchshake]

If I point out I had gender reassignment surgery on the 25th do I win?

Needs more Nazi Punching and an Art History Degree.

Get on my level.

[Deleted]

Actually I am unconvinced it will be technically possible to rise up. The power of technology to suppress may mean that "uprising" is functionally impossible. For the reasons you state, it is technically impossible and the means for total suppression are there.

The only effective rebellion would be something so cataclysmic that it would imperil the species survival.

Pretty much, and even then I am sure the modern aristocracy would find a way to survive and thrive.

[Theodarzna]

Pretty much, and even then I am sure the modern aristocracy would find a way to survive and thrive.

Not really. If something significant enough happened, I'd think it civilization destroying.

[Deleted]

Not really. If something significant enough happened, I'd think it civilization destroying.

I fail to see your point.

Even if something ends up destroying civilization as we know it today, human species would most likely survive the fall of civilization. The modern aristocracy has the infrastructure and the methodology in place that allows it to survive and reestablish power dominance over those who have survived the fall of civilization.

[Theodarzna]

I fail to see your point.

Even if something ends up destroying civilization as we know it today, human species would most likely survive the fall of civilization. The modern aristocracy has the infrastructure and the methodology in place that allows it to survive and reestablish power dominance over those who have survived the fall of civilization.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, if 90% of the population died tomorrow, the rich actually would end up as feral savages assuming they were disproportionately among the survivors. The reason being that the top 1% of the population or even most of the population doesn't know how to maintain civilization. Most CEO's and Hedgefund managers don't know what keeps the lights on, or the buildings warm. If tomorrow 90% of mankind perished for whatever strange reason and assume everything was still undamaged, everything would fall apart in about a month and much of the survivors would likely start to starve and die. This is because most of that infrastructure needs a lot of people to even justify its existence and keep it working.

[Deleted]

Contrary to conventional wisdom, if 90% of the population died tomorrow, the rich actually would end up as feral savages assuming they were disproportionately among the survivors. The reason being that the top 1% of the population or even most of the population doesn't know how to maintain civilization. Most CEO's and Hedgefund managers don't know what keeps the lights on, or the buildings warm. If tomorrow 90% of mankind perished for whatever strange reason and assume everything was still undamaged, everything would fall apart in about a month and much of the survivors would likely start to starve and die. This is because most of that infrastructure needs a lot of people to even justify its existence and keep it working.

Theodarzna, I am from Croatia, we used to be part of Yugoslavia, a socialist country. Like the elite in many other socialist countries, ours were obsessed with the idea of inevitable nuclear holocaust between the imperialistic capitalistic West and the socialist countries of the world. They were devising plans how to restart complete political dominance over the population that survived nuclear exchange since the days of Stalin. Since then, the technology has progressed to heights undreamed of, and with it, the infrastructure and methodology required to reignite the political dominance of the modern aristocracy.

That 1% is far more intelligent and cunning then you give them credit for, and they would include people of various professions who would provide their knowledge how to keep the lights on or the buildings warm in exchange for safe place during the collapse of civilization. The military would be given safe place for them and their families, and they would keep order with a iron fist. That is how societies were run for thousands of years. A king>his military>workers.

[Mafic]

Yeah, I got caught starting a post I couldn't finish. But that corporation comment is bullshit conspiracy theory.

I agree with a lot of what you said otherwise, if we're talking specifically about American political parties. The two parties are almost economically identical. You'd have to go to the city council level to find divergence. Sorry for the poor quoting.

It's worth pointing out that conservatives are becoming less liberal by the day.

Conservatives in America in general are not becoming less liberal by the day. What is happening is the religious conservatives are surging again in being a vocal part of society. American Libertarians (not to be confused with European Libertarians and Anarchists) tend to be the most liberal of conservatives and yet they are still around.

What I find interesting though is that most people tend to be liberal on social issues, but it is the economic issues that causes division. And the economy is driven by human behavior and that interaction within a social fabric.

This is why social justice is often linked with economic justice.

[Moralgy]

homosexual marriage, abortion, promiscuity, premarital sex/cohabitation, single motherhood, violent video games/movies for kids, indecent art (pornography!)/music just to name a few

some of these evils should be destroyed through legislation, others need a new (old) social order to cure us of them (shaming, discrimination, refusal to employ/lend money etc)

There are countries out there that are perfect for you, maybe go somewhere else since you really do hate freedom.

[Mafic]

What you said is mostly just elaborating on my position, not disproving it.

But I would say "in general" conservatives are becoming less liberal. They are simply less liberal than before, and part of that is likely a reaction to our first black president and part of it is possibly from learning new political norms from Trump, who is the first illiberal president. Populism and nationalism is becoming the new politic, hence the creation of the alt-right. Being less liberal doesn't necessarily mean you want to go back to slavery, but sentiments such as fake news is a huge step backwards for liberalism.

Some conservatives are becoming less liberal in a sense of their anti science and anti journalism stances which stems from religious conservatives. Religious conservatives were always against mainstream media and science starting post 1960s in America. This is why they created entire communities to spread their own "truths", books, conventions, etc.

Some progressives are becoming less liberal in that they don't understand the value of free speech which is why the supposed alt right is gaining momentum. The alt right is basically anyone that disagrees with the progressive message. That is a fairly large tent to be honest and by lumping in Neo nazis as an example with the supposed alt right it only fuels the belief that progressives in general are playing identity politics.

Fundamentally, what disturbs me is that both parties have drifted away from truth, science, and journalism. One side says it is all fake while the other side says this is the absolute truth and to question it makes you a Nazi!

Both parties need to pull back to a center that relies on real debate and honest communication with freedom of speech. Tribalism of shutting down or not communicating only polarizes the United States even more.

[Frontenac]

While exculpating Conservatives from undermining Liberals at every turn.

I swear a Democrat asked to share a toy in the Second Grade, and they were deeply offended. Plotting their revenge ever since.

Conservatives in America are liberal themselves.

[Felya]

Conservatives in America are liberal themselves.

Please, explain...

[Frontenac]

Please, explain...

In America, even conservatives believe in the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of religion and separation of the Church and the State, freedom of press, of thought, of speech and in a free market. That makes them liberals, even though their interpretation of some aspects of liberalism may differ. They are not modern liberals or progressive, of course. Let's say they are old liberals...

[Endus]

In America, even conservatives believe in the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of religion and separation of the Church and the State, freedom of press, of thought, of speech and in a free market. That makes them liberals, even though their interpretation of some aspects of liberalism may differ. They are not modern liberals or progressive, of course. Let's say they are old liberals...

Rule of law, unless it means Clinton did nothing wrong, or they're angry and want to seize a government building.
Equality under the law, unless you're a gay couple that want to get married.
Freedom of religion, as long as you're Christian and not a Muslim.
Separation of Church and State, as long as you mean non-Christian "churches". Because they sure want to insert religious Christian rules into abortion and marriage law, at bare minimum.
Freedom of the press, unless it points out bad things the President is doing.
Freedom of speech, as long as you're not condemning people for being prejudiced or, again, badmouthing the President.
Freedom of the market, but not for any product they deem "bad".

What world are you living in?

[Frontenac]

What world are you living in?

And what world are you living in?

Rule of law, unless it means Clinton did nothing wrong, or they're angry and want to seize a government building.

I don't know what you're getting at, but as far as I know, there are not a lot of people in America who want to close the Congress. Rule of law means that the country is not ruled by individuals, like a King ruling by edicts or a despot by decree, but by laws, set by the representatives of the people in Congress or Parliament. I never heard one conservative politicians who wanted to go against that.

Equality under the law, unless you're a gay couple that want to get married.

Equality under the law means that the law is the same for all. It doesn't mean that the law is just. That's why laws can be changed. See previous point.

Freedom of religion, as long as you're Christian and not a Muslim.

I admit that, nowadays, Muslims have bad press. But no one ever speaks about buddhists, sikhs, Jews, hindu, animists or the Worshippers of the Onion... And I have never heard of a great wave in USA that wants to close all mosques. There are more christian churches burnt in India than mosques burnt in USA...

Separation of Church and State, as long as you mean non-Christian "churches". Because they sure want to insert religious Christian rules into abortion and marriage law, at bare minimum.

Of course, when the congress or parliament is filled with christian representatives, there's a chance that the laws will reflect their values. That does not mean that there is no separation between the Church and the State. That expression only means that the different clergies have no direct role in the government as they had under monarchy.

Freedom of the press, unless it points out bad things the President is doing.

As far as I know, these papers are still printing aren't they? How many journalists have been arrested or harassed or personnaly harmed by those evil conservatives? You even had republicans condemning Trump when he attacked the press.

Freedom of speech, as long as you're not condemning people for being prejudiced or, again, badmouthing the President.

See previous point.

Freedom of the market, but not for any product they deem "bad".

Yes, but to forbid them, they must go to the Congress. Because anything that is not forbidden by the law is allowed. And conservatives are the greatest proponents of the free market and deregulation.

Even their fight against gun control has its roots in liberalism. In their minds, they are fighting for an individual right to bare arms and to protect the Constitution (written by a bunch of liberals). That does not mean they are right. I stand with what I said. American society has been founded upon the tenets of liberalism and still is. There are divergence of opinions on those tenets, and in time some have been coined "conservatives" and other "liberals", but at their roots, they are all liberals.

[Felya]

In America, even conservatives believe in the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of religion and separation of the Church and the State, freedom of press, of thought, of speech and in a free market. That makes them liberals, even though their interpretation of some aspects of liberalism may differ. They are not modern liberals or progressive, of course. Let's say they are old liberals...

You think conservatives are lawless and unequal under law, do not support freedom of religion or the press... ?

[Sunseeker]

God damn I wish this discussion would pick if it's talking about to left-wing cunts known as liberals or those capitalist pigs known as liberals.

It's kinda an important distinction ya know?

[Macaquerie]

God damn I wish this discussion would pick if it's talking about to left-wing cunts known as liberals or those capitalist pigs known as liberals.

It's kinda an important distinction ya know?

I would imagine that this doesn't matter to the OP, who seems to be in favor of a return to agrarian feudalism

[Sunseeker]

I would imagine that this doesn't matter to the OP, who seems to be in favor of a return to agrarian feudalism

The OP doesn't care much for intellectual honesty, has previously spoken about how she thinks there are better opportunities for her (a single mother of two) in Venezuela than the USA and makes indirect support of Trump a regular part of her posts.

That is to say, the OP is not an idiot, but a purposefully deceptive poster.