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.
Marxism might be 'radical' but simply being socially liberal isn't radical at all. These days it's completely normal.
Most people like to see themselves as liberal, but the problem is that very few people actually are. The entire concept of liberalism is to give individuals as much personal freedom as possible, with limited government and societal interference. These "liberal" crusades you sometimes see on the news, such as a the government telling a Christian baker he has to make a cake for a gay couple, is not liberalism, it's regressive liberalism. Same with this anti-fascist crowd, shutting down opinions that you don't like is not liberal.
I don't even have a problem with homosexuality, but I'm just giving some examples of when so-called liberals really aren't being very liberal at all.
Most people like to see themselves as liberal, but the problem is that very few people actually are. The entire concept of liberalism is to give individuals as much personal freedom as possible, with limited government interference. These "liberal" crusades you sometimes see on the news, such as a the government telling a baker he has to make a cake for a gay couple, is not liberalism, it's regressive liberalism. Same with this anti-fascist crowd, shutting down opinions that you don't like is not liberal.
I don't even have a problem with homosexuality, but I'm just giving some examples of when so-called liberals really aren't being very liberal at all.
That's shoddy logic though - they are no more representative of the left than fascists are of the right.
They are more prolific, simply because they shout the loudest. Personally, I think that baker would cause more damage to their own business by refusing to do that than any 'regressive liberals'. They have received an incredible amount of negative press coverage.
People will probably vote for Labour thinking they won't win, or they will vote for their local MP. If you're the kind of person who would never vote Tory, Labour seem like the only alternative with any traction at all. Greens are standing down in many constituencies in order to improve Labour's chances (Green party members generally loathe both the Tories and Labour but the latter is the obvious choice for them).
I wouldn't want Corybn as PM but the thought of him leading the UK doesn't scare me any more than May, who I consider equally unappealing but for different reasons.
For me I'd vote UKIP is I lived in your constiuency but for the Tories if I lived in Wrexham.
As for Corbyn I see a genuine risk of the UK turned into Greece with a hate-speech police brigade running down all opposition if he wins. For those opposing big brother, as bad as Theresa May is, she'd have no match on Comrade Corbyn's and Fidel McDonnell's reign of red terror.
That's shoddy logic though - they are no more representative of the left than fascists are of the right.
I don't think the national courts doing something that received widespread support from the left is representative of an extremist ideology at all. The second example was extreme, but I used it to emphasise the point.
But then all the "state rights" right wingers only support state rights when it fits their agenda. For example, if a state does not want to help the fed's hunt on illegal immigrants, all those people suddenly cry "how dare they disobey Trump?!". So really, both sides in many cases only support these ideologies when it fits their agenda. Those who support "States rights" mostly do so when it involves banning gay marriage or making abortion difficult, but when a state wants to legalize marijuana or maintain progressive laws on illegal immigration, suddenly the "states rights" arguments disappear
As for Corbyn I see a genuine risk of the UK turned into Greece with a hate-speech police brigade running down all opposition if he wins. For those opposing big brother, as bad as Theresa May is, she'd have no match on Comrade Corbyn's and Fidel McDonnell's reign of red terror.
this seems unlikely, when Corbyn ever said much about hate speech? Though I find the idea of hate speech laws odd.
this seems unlikely, when Corbyn ever said much about hate speech? Though I find the idea of hate speech laws odd.
That's the left's main weapon in Europe. Harshening hate speech laws to include all sorts of things (except for hating on white people that is. In Sweden you can't even be fined for suggesting Swedes should be killed).
I don't think the national courts doing something that received widespread support from the left is representative of an extremist ideology at all. The second example was extreme, but I used it to emphasise the point.
I'm not saying it's an extremist ideology, but you are picking things out of thin air and stating them as fact, which is not a very good thing to do.
That's the left's main weapon in Europe. Harshening hate speech laws to include all sorts of things (except for hating on white people that is. In Sweden you can't even be fined for suggesting Swedes should be killed).
Our potential future Home Secretary has a long history of making racist comments about white people. Things could very well get worse with someone like her in a position of influence.
That's shoddy logic though - they are no more representative of the left than fascists are of the right.
They are more prolific, simply because they shout the loudest. Personally, I think that baker would cause more damage to their own business by refusing to do that than any 'regressive liberals'. They have received an incredible amount of negative press coverage.
The baker was in a socially conservative area; he may have done little damage locally. And many locals probably resented the out of area attacks. I'd disagree that was unrepresentative, at least a lot of the left [half?] was anti-baker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razza94
Most people like to see themselves as liberal, but the problem is that very few people actually are. The entire concept of liberalism is to give individuals as much personal freedom as possible, with limited government and societal interference. These "liberal" crusades you sometimes see on the news, such as a the government telling a Christian baker he has to make a cake for a gay couple, is not liberalism, it's regressive liberalism. Same with this anti-fascist crowd, shutting down opinions that you don't like is not liberal.
A reminder liberal is usually used in the US just to mean center-left, not classical liberalism. Anyway, where do you draw the line? Can a baker legally be able to refuse to bake a cake for a black-white couple? I'd say no in that instance, yes for gay marriage. But it's arbitrary difference, though there's nothing in Christianity against interracial marriage, unlike gay marriage.
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.
