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.
What makes you think that bathroom access is the only issue that people who are talking about socialism/liberalism care about?
Is free/affordable access to healthcare not equally as important as some of the issues you are talking about here? How about issues like paid family and sick leave? Are those not issues important to everyone because they get fired because they have to miss work due to an illness?
I didn't throw those in the mix for a lot of reasons. There are reasons other than mean-spiritedness not to favor "Medicare-for-all", not the least of which is the impact on quality of health care and the tendency to overuse a "free good." Paid family and sick leave are more a reshuffling of wages than anything else. I put in issues that there was, at one time at least, a "black and white," no shades of gray point of view. Chaining people to machines, or "Jim Crow" bathroom facilities are far outside the realm of civilized discourse. Differing mixes of the free market and subsidized health care, by contrast, are open for debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
This is all nonsense to confuse ignorant white people to vote for politicians who adopt public policy that benefits rich people.
Like everywhere else in the first world, we live in a social democracy. We use taxes to fund things that are for the public good. We’ve had public schools and public libraries forever. The rich people who pay most of the taxes have manipulated this so social democracy->socialist->evil commie.
I hear the shaking of a tin cup. I'm upper middle class in a high cost-of-living area. I don't feel rich. But I don't want to subsidize people who have more children than they can afford, just for the momentary pleasure of a roll in the hay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
Similarly, liberal means open to new ideas. I’m a liberal. I’m always learning. I’m always changing my worldview as I learn new things.
Same here. Rich people have corrupted this so liberal to poorly educated unengaged people is now a bad thing. Why? Because they want to squish rational public policy discussions about things that would benefit the country but would require taxing rich people to fund them. [/quote]Just because the idea is new doesn't mean improved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
So when anyone spouts Fox News rhetoric about “liberal” and “socialist”, I first check to see if they’re rich people merely being greedy or ignorant people being manipulated by the greedy rich people.
I watch some Fox News and agree there is a bias. But I want to see whose dipping into my pocket without being pick-pocketed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute
There's some false equivalence going on. For one thing, you haven't separated social vs. economic issues.
Also, you used something as trivial as transgender bathrooms as your example of a left-wing cause, after giving examples of serious issues that were economic in origin.
Who even decided that transgender bathrooms are a "liberal" issue? If I remember correctly, it were various social conservative groups who raised a stink about this and turned it into a rallying issue.
When the liberals decide to disrupt everyday life for little gain, transgender bathrooms come to symbolize those views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute
For modern social issues, how about race relations in post-2000 America? There's a gaping divide between liberal and conservative viewpoints there and it's pretty serious as it'll affect the fabric of our society.
How about an equal chance for all? Not a spurious promise of equal results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute
How about national infrastructure? Plenty of problems there to solve. Are those causes liberal or conservative? Water mains, freeways are easy to understand. So how about telecommunications and Internet infrastructure? Health care infrastructure?
Today's NY Times editorial, Build a New Hudson River Tunnel discusses the need for a new rail tunnel to protect against what Senator Chuck Schumer calls "“a regional transportation Armageddon.” *************
While Tappan Zee litigation continues relating to "the wage difference between carpenters and dock builders" where "(c)arpenters are paid $70.11 per hour, compared with dock builders that make $92.47 per hour" no consideration is given to a "workfare" program where benefits recipients would apprentice and be paid, say, $22 an hour to learn a trade and $40-$45 per our when working at these trades. The cost numbers of $20 billion to build these tunnels and related train station improvements is eye-popping and ultimately unfeasible. No matter how badly needed nothing is going to get built at those figures.
There are other projects just as urgently needed. New York needs at least one more water tunnel, so the existing three water tunnels can be shut down seriatim and rebuilt. Again labor costs are prohibitive. Other gold-plating on these projects needs to be removed, but all must participate. These projects must happen and the costs must be made bearable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute
Your argument probably should've simply said that the past was a simpler time therefore in retrospect the issues seem easier to take sides for.
Not a bad idea. That's a good thread maybe for you to start since if I did it wouldn't be original. I'll be there are as a poster.
That's because the lines keep moving. The so-called left-wingers of the early 20th Century would most likely identify with the far right today. I mean, everyone loves to talk about the many benefits of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. And they would mostly be right. But Margaret Sanger also advocated eugenics, writing about weeding out the "unfit." Imagine the uproar if anyone used that kind of language today.
Good points all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
And I could only imagine what these folks would say about the modern debates on subjects such as transgender rights or illegal immigration.
It would give any sane person a serious belly-laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
What's more, the proponents of socialism have to own up to its manifest failures. Any number of ideals of socialism have proved disasters in practice, from state ownership of enterprises to the top-down governance of society. From Russia to Maoist China to Cambodia to more benign disasters such a Venezuela and Great Britain before Thatcher, the more fully the principles of Socialism have been exercised, the more sclerotic the economy becomes and the more rights have been curtailed to ensure compliance. All you have to do is watch the brutal descent of Venezuela from its place as Latin America's strongest economy before Chavez to the complete basket case it is today. And that happened over a span of twenty years.
I see nothing benign about Venezuela. However the Socialists would blame all these failures on a "vast right-wing conspiracy." They'll never take responsibility for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dozerbear
As to the OP, I think you're right jbg. Just a few days ago, an illegal alien raped a little girl in Philadelphia after an ICE detainer was ignored and he was released. Sadly, this happens all too often, along with murders, deadly drunk driving wrecks, ect. I wonder sometimes what these people think about when a prisoner they should have held but didn't, kills someone? That is a "left wing cause" that is absolutely indefensible.
Some of the issues today only seem harder because we think they're okay. To many people in 1750, it was plainly obvious that black people were not of equal moral importance or mental capability as white people. That wasn't a hard question for many. To a lot of people in 1880, that was suddenly a much harder question.
Take animals, for instance. Our modern American factory farming system is torture. There's no way around it. We put animals that are as smart as our dogs, capable of complex emotional connection and deep levels of happiness or suffering, through torture because we like the way they taste. To me, that is an obvious example of most Americans being as duped about the world around them as the 1750 white supremacist.
There are still convincing issues out there that you should be a liberal about. They just don't seem as plainly obvious as the old issues do with our luxury of retrospection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
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 think people who run two million pigs (USA only) through factory farming processes each year exceed the levels of harm produced by the examples you mentioned. There are still comparable moral tragedies today. They just aren't recognized as such by the average Joe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
That's because the lines keep moving. The so-called left-wingers of the early 20th Century would most likely identify with the far right today. I
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.
Take animals, for instance. Our modern American factory farming system is torture. There's no way around it. We put animals that are as smart as our dogs, capable of complex emotional connection and deep levels of happiness or suffering, through torture because we like the way they taste. To me, that is an obvious example of most Americans being as duped about the world around them as the 1750 white supremacist.
Good overall analysis but we part company on animals. Man is a "keystone species" which means that we, by evolution, manipulate other species. Wolves and other top-line predators are also that kind of species.
Good overall analysis but we part company on animals. Man is a "keystone species" which means that we, by evolution, manipulate other species. Wolves and other top-line predators are also that kind of species.
Nature has nothing to do with morality. The fact that man evolved a certain way doesn't mean that we are justified in causing significant and avoidable harm to creatures very capable of experiencing suffering. If evolution were our guide for morality, we would be justified in killing sexual competitors, raping women and eating our young.
Some of the issues today only seem harder because we think they're okay. To many people in 1750, it was plainly obvious that black people were not of equal moral importance or mental capability as white people. That wasn't a hard question for many. To a lot of people in 1880, that was suddenly a much harder question.
Take animals, for instance. Our modern American factory farming system is torture. There's no way around it. We put animals that are as smart as our dogs, capable of complex emotional connection and deep levels of happiness or suffering, through torture because we like the way they taste. To me, that is an obvious example of most Americans being as duped about the world around them as the 1750 white supremacist.
There are still convincing issues out there that you should be a liberal about. They just don't seem as plainly obvious as the old issues do with our luxury of retrospection.
I think people who run two million pigs (USA only) through factory farming processes each year exceed the levels of harm produced by the examples you mentioned. There are still comparable moral tragedies today. They just aren't recognized as such by the average Joe.
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 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.
IDK, OP. I think it's outrageous that Disney, and other companies, fired their US tech workers, and took advantage of too-lax H1B visa allowances to hire foreign techies for cheaper. I think it's pretty bad that skilled workers (or any workers) 50+ in age somewhat routinely get dismissed from private sector jobs, even though age discrimination is illegal. I have no trouble identifying the "bad guys" when it comes to corporate behavior. Agribusiness, the hotel industry and the garment industry, to name a few, who hire undocumented workers en masse, instead of Americans, so they can pay less and skip out on providing benefits. Corporations that export jobs overseas, instead of paying American workers, not to mention the politicians who allow all of the above to continue.
What's wrong with American industry, that it supposedly can no longer afford to hire American labor and pay at least halfway-decent wages and benefits? Is it really so difficult to make a profit these days, that they're unable to do that? Or is it simply due to greed at the top?
I think you're losing your focus on the issue. You're dragging in all manner of irrelevant and unrelated topics, like gun laws, and whatnot. That has nothing to do with corporate labor issues. No wonder you feel lost, and unable to identify the "bad guys".
In one way it was easier. Progressives and liberals had a base, the USSR. The homeland of socialism.
It supported progressives all over the world with money, guns, advisors, etc. It worked through labor unions, media and film companies it controlled to spread the progressive line and incite discontent against existing regimes. It also worked with progressives to overthrow non-socialist governments and prop up socialist ones that the people rose up against. It used money, espionage and propaganda to further the progressive line.
So they had a lot more help then.
But, the USSR and it satellites also were examples of what progressives wanted. People could see for themselves what the progressive goal was. I remember one progressive saying that the fall of the USSR was the greatest thing that ever happened to progressivism. No longer would there be an example of its ideology it would have to defend. It would be free to criticize freedom's imperfections with a theoretical vision of progressive perfection.
Why would it be any more difficult now? The only reasons could be people being more worried now of others' opinions, and/or people less able to think for themselves. Beyond that, there's nothing that would reduce the freedom to think in such way.
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.
