As I said, if you're talking to someone who actually knows what socialism is, they wouldn't consider themselves liberal in the first place. I'm curious though, what do you consider socialism to be?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Could anything make you not liberal?
- Thread starter Thatonedice1
- Start date
As usual, this conversation is diverging into dictionary definitions of terms. Put it more simply, do you think that we can make the world better by changing the things that are wrong or by keeping things the way they are?
nah fam. i can't agree with this. i respect what you're saying though, but people are for sure profiting off this shit. i see a post about the koch bros on here like daily.
as i said to the other poster, respect your opinion but people for sure profit off this shit. the owners of major tv networks (i'll include social media in that too like facebook) have just as much if not more power than our politicians when it comes to influencing the general public and how they think. just because you're smart and feel like your mindset can't easily be controlled, that's not all americans, and even your viewpoint could be manipulated by the right person most likely. myself included.
i do agree that currently it appears america is kind of at a cross between two sides, but again that doesn't mean that there is only two sides. if you're supporting bernie because of his socialist ideals for example, that does not automatically make you a liberal. if you support him for his progressive ideals that makes you a liberal.
i'd argue america is a battle between two sides right now desperately trying to break off into other "sides", which will hopefully lead to some new parties gaining traction.. in my lifetime? i don't have much hope anymore lol. but hey, it'd be nice. what we have now is bullshit.
sorry if this reply is trash i'm writing in between overwatch elim matches.
This has tended to be true economically, but will no longer be as time goes on.
Reason is that when you are young you are care free with no responsibilities but as you get older and have kids and buy a house etc you start to think of saving for the future and want to have lower taxes etc.
Things have changed though and young people can no longer buy houses and have have less kids etc so they will never get into the same situation.
Add on the progress we are making with social issues and the chances that young generations will regress into conservatism is very low,especially with how the disparity between rich and poor is only increasing.
I'd probably call myself a neoliberal. Could anything change that? Yes, logic and evidence. However, logic and evidence have led me to this point in the first place. Nothing I've seen from other camps has been convincing.
I'm disturbed by the posters who say nothing can change their minds. If that's true, they're basically the equivalent of religious zealots.
I'm disturbed by the posters who say nothing can change their minds. If that's true, they're basically the equivalent of religious zealots.
The profiting from political division is a symptom of caustic capitalism, not a cause of the divide.
never said i was a socialist so i don't really know what you're asking me this for lol. i'll stand by my point though that liberalism and socialism are not the same thing and don't need each other to exist, which is why you could be a fiscally conservative liberal or a right wing socialist even if it would look stupid to most other people.
What if the facts change? What if someone supports, say, a higher corporate tax rate but evidence shows that it ends up being better to lower corporate tax and increase personal tax instead?
Although I doubt it would be the case, if there were some wide-reaching study conducted that concluded that libertarian ideas, or conservative policies in general, were the best thing for society in general, I suppose so.
Like I said, I don't think any study would reach that conclusion.
Like I said, I don't think any study would reach that conclusion.
Better for whom? And largely, I consider economic policy biased guessing as long as it's controlled by people that stand to benefit from policy.
Better for whichever group you want to look at. Set aside the specific issue and arguments for a second. Do you not see a problem with people saying that no evidence could change their minds?
The question doesn't even really make sense... if you're an informed person who believes in human rights, the label of "liberal" is placed upon you, not the other way around.
This is kind of a useless hypothetical. In the face of new facts, yes, positions will necessarily change. That's the essence of thoughtful policymaking. It's those who doctor or falsify facts to suit their existing positions who are in the wrong, and more often the left is the side of the political spectrum more willing to adapt policy to fit facts, rather than adapt facts to fit policy.
"Right wing socialist" what the fuck is that supposed to be? I'm asking you, because how are you supposed to have a discussion on socialism without having an idea in your head of what it is?
So you're saying that the people claiming that nothing will change their minds actually will, when the time comes? I wish I could be as optimistic as you. History has shown many examples to the contrary.
That might be true when it comes to fiscal concerns but in terms of social policies, eh. I'm not going to start disliking minorities and LGBT+ folks or discounting their perspectives just because I'm older.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
you seriously think right wing people or parties cannot have socialist ideals? you really think it's that black and white?
socialism =/= liberalism is my argument. that's where the discussion begins and ends for me. i don't think there's much to discuss because they're two different things? if you really want to have a discussion, i guess try to show me how by being a socialist you're automatically liberal.
Likely? No. Possible? Yes. Considering the ever-shifting boundaries of the parties it's borderline naive to call it impossible.
Still, I'd venture on an ethical and social level, I will be inescapably left. Then again, what that will mean in 20 years, who knows?
Still, I'd venture on an ethical and social level, I will be inescapably left. Then again, what that will mean in 20 years, who knows?
I'm not entirely sure what that guy's getting at, but it is entirely possible to pair ostensibly socialist economic policies with conservative social policies. Case in point: minority parties in northern Australia, most notably including Bob Katter's Australian Party - which advocates agrarian socialism, including high levels of government regulation, with overt racism and anti-immigration policies. This is a pattern that you find in a lot of rural regions - particularly those with significant socio-economic problems.
Edit:
On topic, though, and discounting the confusion over the definition of 'liberal' - which I am taking as the general 'American' catch-all term for progressive. I am curious about the factors that cause individuals to subscribe openly as Trumpers or to far-right politics in general. It's easy to understand in terms of broad socio-economic divisions but I had always subscribed to the basic assumption that education and critical thinking ability could stave off the sort of thinking that privileges concepts like 'fake news'. Yet, recently I ran into an old school acquaintance who turned this notion on its head.
This guy had inexplicably drunk the Trump kool-aid sometime over the past few years and now spends his time posting facebook rants about women and minorities ruining the world and QAnon garbage. This guy is a successful off-shore tax lawyer with multiple masters degrees from the best universities in the world and used to debate at a national level. I simply don't understand how someone that educated and intelligent could espouse political views that are not only demonstrably false but are straight-up conspiracies.
Last edited:
this was exactly what i was getting at lol.
all i was trying to say was that liberalism =/= socialism, it's not like being one makes you the other.
From a social standpoint, this is pretty much where I'm at as well. Financially, I'm a bit more on the conservative side. To address the question, the only way I would move away from liberalism is for the definition of what it is to change, and/or for the conservative and liberal parties ideologies to flip-flop.
Yes, I agree that socialism isn't liberalism, if you saw my other posts in this thread you'd know that.
You can't separate economic and social views, because that's ignoring that they're intrinsically linked. Why do you think blacks and women are lower in social ranks in the US? It's because they have less economic wealth. Racism, sexism, etc. is also heavily linked to conservatism, because they reason why they want to conserve bigotry is because they've made their fortunes throughout the era of bigotry and as such don't want that to change.
When climate change really gets fucked beyond denial I'm willing to bet conservative becomes a term for environmentalists.
Words are funny.
Words are funny.
Literally doesn't make any sense.
I'm liberal because I believe in progress and the continuation of freedom and equal rights for people who are currently and historically marginalized.
If someone is so easily swayed to give up those core pillars of progressivism then they likely weren't exactly liberal to begin with
I'm liberal because I believe in progress and the continuation of freedom and equal rights for people who are currently and historically marginalized.
If someone is so easily swayed to give up those core pillars of progressivism then they likely weren't exactly liberal to begin with
not sure what we're talking about then? that was my only point lol.
edit: matter of fact, you first replied talking to me. i was having a whole other discussion with another person when you came at me. i have no idea what you're trying to get me to talk about lol. i haven't read your other posts because i wasn't replying to them.
oh noo lmao
I think the hysteria about "SJWS" and PC on campus is way overstated. They're like a tiny part of the left, and compared to the GOP, which is passing laws like the Alabama ban on abortion, anti-lgbt laws, climate change denial bills, etc, there's a lot more damage done them then a "looney left" fringe.
☝ ☝ ☝
If you can be so very easily convinced by a fucking youtuber to stop being a decent human being you were already an asshole in the first place.
I didn't first replay talking to you, I first replied with my own post and then PlanetSmasher. And I apologize for using that term, I should have used black people instead.
You absolutely can and there are numerous examples of political parties doing just that. You could argue that advocating social progressivism and crony capitalism is inherently incoherent due to the aforementioned socio-economic factors. The same does not necessarily hold true for the other way around. Some of the most racist policies ever conceived have emerged from the labour movements in Western countries. Again, case in point, the White Australia Policy.
No, you can't. If political parties are claiming to do that they are frauds. Not sure why you're bringing up White Australia, because Australia in its modern incarnation has always been capitalist, they didn't abolish private industry and wage labour. There are examples of bigoted labour movements in the past, yes, but I think a current-day socialist would be fucking clueless and wrong if they think they can separate the economy's relationship with social issues.
Limiting how much anyone person can make.
That doesn't extend to corporations though. They take too many resources and somehow it's in the people to fix it.
That doesn't extend to corporations though. They take too many resources and somehow it's in the people to fix it.
Why?
Here's another way of thinking about it. They aren't separating social and economic issues at all, they are simply conceiving of the relationship on different terms. I'm bringing up White Australia because it was fundamentally a non-progressive policy built on labour protections (i.e. economic concerns). Shortage of labour led to high wages and powerful unions. Said workers and unions had a vested interest in protecting themselves from competition from immigrant labour and ensuring that industry remained in the country. These themes are still reinvoked today in political discourse surrounding rural/manufacturing hubs.
Historically speaking, socialism has also been heavily associated with discourse of cultural and ethnic unanimity. This is most notably the case in China's 'zhonghua minzu' discourse which privileges ethnic Han-ness. China may be essentially capitalist today, but it has actively engaged in overtly racist policies including straight-up ethnic cleansing for decades.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that socialists are inherently racist, I'm simply making the point that this division is not as clear-cut as it appears.
