Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
P.S. Jack London's work, as you describe it, sounds horrific! I'm glad I never had his literature inflicted on me in school. The novels I did have inflicted on me were traumatic enough. The one you describe doesn't sound appropriate at all for young-adult school kids.
I was describing literature of his era. He did not describe industrial conditions per se. That was more other authors discussed in that post, such as Upton Sinclair.
I was describing literature of his era. He did not describe industrial conditions per se. That was more other authors discussed in that post, such as Upton Sinclair.
You gave a pretty graphic description of one of London's novels. I was referring to that.
Liberals and socialists were more sensible a couple of decades ago than the majority seem to be now, if that is what you mean.
Wait a minute; what kind of "socialists" are you talking about? Decades ago, "socialists" meant card-carrying members of the Socialist Party. Today, some people are changing the meaning to apply it to people who are for a European-style kinder, gentler capitalism. Those are two very different things. Clarify your terms, first, please. Same to the OP.
Of course. Liberalism isn't a prescribed set of beliefs that neatly apply to specific issues. It is a much deeper belief about the nature of experience, ethics and obligations. There were plenty of people in 1750 who might have been liberals in their day because they believed in representative government. But they also probably believed blacks were animals and women were property. That doesn't mean that someone in 2018 can be a real liberal simply by believing in representative government.
Liberalism often entails thinking in unconventional ways about the world around us. This is likely why liberalism and IQ are positively correlated. Thinking in novel ways requires intelligence. I do think there is an end to this moral monster treadmill somewhere. At some point, people won't necessarily look back at previous generations and wonder how they could do such terrible things and hold such obviously false beliefs. I think this is when we recognize consciousness as the prerequisite for moral consideration. Everything that is conscious has interests. There are ways its life can go well or go poorly, and as such, we should consider its interests when living our lives. Enslaving a black man is against his interests. Subjecting women to sexism is against their interests. Forcing animals through the factory farming process is against their interests. A kid in China doesn't have lesser interests than I do simply because he lives in China. Once that is the basis for our moral appraisals, I think we have a shot at staying in the ballpark morality-wise with future generations. At that point, it might be possible for everyone to be liberals.
I think the Ops perspective is relevant and yet I also would echo for the differentiation that is needed.
When Liberalism is used in order to augment the effective freedom of the whole in a manner that benefits the whole, it is entirely creative and worthy of consideration. The decision to provide education to children is a tax on the citizens to provide this independence, but in the end pays the dividends of the society having an educated labor force. I don't see conservatives as being against these type of arrangements. The country has shifted left. I would argue that this is best shown in providing loan guarantees for students wishing to attend higher education.
In contrast to this is the socialism in our primary and secondary school districts. This was built to support an aspect of liberalism, but schools run without consequence to effectiveness of the desired goal of granting greater freedom. The greater good for society that it has paid for may not be achieved. The very purposes of schools are apparently subjugated to measurements of standardization in common core curricula. I would hope a true liberal would see this as a challenge to rethink the solution, a solution that has the dual protections of government and unions, and realize that effective and lasting innovation in such an environment is difficult if not impossible to maintain.
Ascribing guilt using the sins of the past, or relying upon the baser motives of envy and applying them against a portion of the population as a means to quiet an intellectually competitive thought from there is hardly a liberal ideal, yet seems to handily utilized by proponents of socialism. Sadly this has become championed by fringe elements on the right as well. I believe the Liberal ideal at the moment would be to regain unity for any change to be lasting. I believe most liberals would have hated to take their ideals from the Church or Socialists or AM Radio because thinking inventively and creatively and given the freedom to act in a manner that is helpful is THE giant liberal leap taken by the country.
It's really interesting to me how, just as a majority of Americans become revolted by Trump and Company, the left is now going to overreach. You have idiots out there seriously proposing 70% and 90% taxes on the wealthiest. And some peole actually agreeing with them.
Can we please have a nice moderate from either party run? I realize it's now well-nigh impossible because both parties speak to their respective lunatic fringes, but I can always hope.
P.S. Jack London's work, as you describe it, sounds horrific! I'm glad I never had his literature inflicted on me in school. The novels I did have inflicted on me were traumatic enough. The one you describe doesn't sound appropriate at all for young-adult school kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
You gave a pretty graphic description of one of London's novels. I was referring to that.
This portion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
One of my favorites, Jack London, wrote a novel White Fang. The protagonist is a dog/wolf hybrid named, appropriately, White Fang. White Fang was bought from Native Americans (called First Nations in Canada) by a person who used the dog as a fighter, "Beauty" Smith. White Fang was "deputized" to fight with just about every dog or wolf that could be found. The dog put in to fight him was invariably ripped to piece, to the wild cheering of drunken crowds. Finally a bulldog was launched into the pen, who grabbed White Fang's throat. When White Fang was almost throttled and near death, a pair of decent people burst in, kicked the offending fight artist and sent the fight promoter sprawling, and then separated the animals and nursed White Fang back to health.While it was a childhood or young adult novel it illustrates what people should do. This is universal.
I have re-read it multiple times and actually, the decency part overrides (I hesitate these days to say "trumps") the brutality. This portion of the book should almost be required reading in anti-bullying instruction. It gives an example of what people should do on behalf of the victimized.
I somehow don't think that people who want only males or only females in their bathrooms rise to the level of evil of the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Those people locked the exit doors. When fire broke out hundreds needlessly died. Or the level of evil of the copper mines in the West that paid the workers about $0.01 per hour (or not much more) and effectively stole those wages. Or for that matter most slaveowners or former slaveowners.
I find a major difference in evil between Orville Faubus, the governor of Arkansas who prevented integration of the schools, making the use of the National Guard necessary, and a white or Asian student who wants to get into college free from reverse discrimination. I can find no decent person who supported the use of snarling and biting police dogs and fire hoses against peaceful demonstrators. Or shooting civil rights workers in the south. Contrariwise, I find two sides to stories such as Trayvon Marin, Fergeson, Missouri, Freddy Gray and the like.
Is it not *their* bathrooms. Is that a socialist or liberal statement?
It's a bathroom they are used to and expect to use in a certain undisturbed manner.
That's fine but are these liberal statements or conservative statements?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
