Specialty Item

Liberalism actually feels much closer to the right than to the left—don't you think?

ruggedscout98 said:Right, so we went from "liberals" straight to "radical liberals"... what does that even mean? Left? Right? What's the actual foundation of this "radical liberalism"? Who even coined the term?... Let me give you a quick answer to those questions: "radical liberals" don't actually exist. It's just an insulting, manufactured label mostly used by the religious right.

And is "religious right" supposed to be an insult?
So what, are conservatives claiming everyone is equal now?
Just to be clear, I haven't changed my stance on radical liberals at all during this debate.

ironpanther5 said:Alright, sure, the Liberal Democrats or the Libertarian Party might flip-flop on who ends up in power, but looking at the landscape here in America—where the leader of the biggest leftist party claims he's a liberal, and most people who call themselves liberals actually vote for that same massive leftist party—I don't think it's a stretch to label them as the left. I suppose that's just how things work in developing democracies.
Honestly, trying to parse the whole left-vs-right divide in today's climate is a headache because the lines are constantly shifting.
In my book, economic liberalism belongs to the right, while social liberalism sits firmly on the left.
Since we don't really have a true economic right wing over here, "liberalism" basically just turns into whatever the leftist platform happens to be.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and social movements... Joe Biden can claim to be a liberal all he wants, but his actual actions completely contradict him... if we're talking about true liberals, even Rod Blagojevich fit the bill better... it's just a matter of the centrist voters deciding the outcome (I mentioned this in another thread), which is why both Rod Blagojevich and Joe Biden tried to carve out space in that center. Joe Biden failed, Rod Blagojevich was slightly more successful, whereas someone like Bill Clinton actually pulled it off relatively well... in America, the Election Commission usually hands the win to whichever party manages to swallow the liberals more effectively.

Linda Fox45 said:I’m a conservative and a skeptic—not a fascist or a nationalist by any means. The idea of an all-powerful State stepping in to control everything and erasing our individual cultures and differences... it's honestly terrifying. It’s just a fact that people have different levels of ability—and trying to force equality where it doesn't exist naturally? That usually ends in disaster. Just look at what happened under communism. Everyone deserves equal rights, sure—but not everyone is equally capable.

Wow, you really went out of your way to twist my words there... Honestly. I wasn't even talking about communism. My focus is on valuing the individual, nature, and personal autonomy, though I personally view nations and religions as flawed constructs—they feel artificial and unnatural. I thought I made that quite clear. It feels like I’m having to explain myself just so you or someone else can try to trap me on a technicality. It seems like the goal is to pick apart my logic just to defend your own worldview and prove yours isn't under threat, which feels like a bit of a circular exercise. What I said was straightforward; you can agree or disagree (though it feels a bit like debating whether the Earth is round), but it was stated clearly. Any attempt to nitpick what I said feels less like a discussion and more like an attack. I'm not interested in debating things that are as plain as day.

When discussing liberalism, one must acknowledge that what we call "liberalism" today bears very little resemblance to how the term was used even a few centuries ago. This holds true for almost all political ideologies. For instance, back in the 18th century, liberals were often proponents of slavery, and leading up to the 20th century, many actively opposed women's suffrage. Concepts such as same-sex marriage weren't even part of their intellectual landscape at the time.

ruggedscout98 said:That is a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and social movements... Joe Biden can claim to be a liberal all he wants, but his actual actions completely contradict him... if we're talking about true liberals, even Rod Blagojevich fit the bill better... it's just a matter of the centrist voters deciding the outcome (I mentioned this in another thread), which is why both Rod Blagojevich and Joe Biden tried to carve out space in that center. Joe Biden failed, Rod Blagojevich was slightly more successful, whereas someone like Bill Clinton actually pulled it off relatively well... in America, the Election Commission usually hands the win to whichever party manages to swallow the liberals more effectively.

Man, you think everyone else is just politically illiterate? Get real. There’s economic liberalism, social liberalism, bioethical stuff... there's layers to this. Blagojevich was a straight-up conservative, while Biden claims to be a liberal by declaration and acts like one socially. (By the way, since you were acting so high and mighty with those little smiley faces earlier, maybe you could tell me which specific wars were fought over those issues? You claimed the opposite, so I'm waiting.)

darkfox14 said:http://vimeo.com/30260768

The fishing tournament sabotage over in Oprisavac 😁

😂If they’d tried that stunt in a small town in rural America, I bet there would have been three more worms floating in the water pretty damn quick. 😂😬

Jacob Lewis5 said:And is "religious right" supposed to be an insult?
So what, are conservatives claiming everyone is equal now?
Just to be clear, I haven't changed my stance on radical liberals at all during this debate.

Am I offending someone by calling them a clerical right-winger?

You brought up radical Liberals on page three of this thread... but in your very first post, you lumped Liberals in with radical leftists... to me, that's just basic ignorance. Though, honestly, my apologies if I offended you.

...as for wars, do I really need to list every single conflict fought over territorial expansion, religious differences, or ideological divides? That's why wars happen. For cheese? Sure, wars are fought over cheese too, but even then, it boils down to ideology—one side thinks the cheese stinks, the other thinks it smells great.

ruggedscout98 said:That is a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and social movements... Joe Biden can claim to be a liberal all he wants, but his actual actions completely contradict him... if we're talking about true liberals, even Rod Blagojevich fit the bill better... it's just a matter of the centrist voters deciding the outcome (I mentioned this in another thread), which is why both Rod Blagojevich and Joe Biden tried to carve out space in that center. Joe Biden failed, Rod Blagojevich was slightly more successful, whereas someone like Bill Clinton actually pulled it off relatively well... in America, the Election Commission usually hands the win to whichever party manages to swallow the liberals more effectively.

Everything feels upside down here. Our right-wingers are basically socialists when it comes to economics—they criticize capitalism just as fiercely as any radical leftist would. They often praise Russia and similar nations, bash American foreign policy, obsess over various power centers, lean into conspiracy theories, and push for a massive government state... they're only "right-wing" because of their views on family, religion, and marriage...

Susan Lopez2 said:When discussing liberalism, one must acknowledge that what we call "liberalism" today bears very little resemblance to how the term was used even a few centuries ago. This holds true for almost all political ideologies. For instance, back in the 18th century, liberals were often proponents of slavery, and leading up to the 20th century, many actively opposed women's suffrage. Concepts such as same-sex marriage weren't even part of their intellectual landscape at the time.

It’s still not on their radar today either... asking them about it is basically absurd because, to a Liberal, it's a given that everyone is free to express their opinions, views, or preferences. But since you wanted to get technical, fine—we'll state our views clearly. Of course, that tends to annoy both the religious Right and the radical Left, because those ideologies prefer a society built on blind obedience rather than actually speaking your mind.

ruggedscout98 said:Am I offending someone by calling them a clerical right-winger?

You brought up radical Liberals on page three of this thread... but in your very first post, you lumped Liberals in with radical leftists... to me, that's just basic ignorance. Though, honestly, my apologies if I offended you.

...as for wars, do I really need to list every single conflict fought over territorial expansion, religious differences, or ideological divides? That's why wars happen. For cheese? Sure, wars are fought over cheese too, but even then, it boils down to ideology—one side thinks the cheese stinks, the other thinks it smells great.

I actually brought up radical Liberals in the very first sentence of my opening post.
Don't worry about apologizing, I was just messing with you.
There aren't any wars fought for the reasons I listed—starting with the Crusader States, which were sparked by plagues, difficult trade routes through North Africa, or just the rich wanting to grab more land. Nothing exists that is inherently "bad." Religion, ideas, nations, smartphones, the internet, cars—none of it is good or bad on its own. We can make all of those things great or turn them into poison, but as far as I'm concerned, every single human invention is totally neutral.

Linda Fox45 said:Everything feels upside down here. Our right-wingers are basically socialists when it comes to economics—they criticize capitalism just as fiercely as any radical leftist would. They often praise Russia and similar nations, bash American foreign policy, obsess over various power centers, lean into conspiracy theories, and push for a massive government state... they're only "right-wing" because of their views on family, religion, and marriage...

Spot on... my take is exactly the same. The biggest communists in America are actually the clerical right-wingers... the biggest fascists are the radical leftists. Someone like Spiro Agnew, acting like a Christian nationalist, is actually a Liberal, while Joe Biden claiming to be a Liberal is really just an economic technocratic conservative...
...The American right mostly pushes anti-American policies and cheers for Palestine, Iran, and radical religious Islam, while the left tries everything they can to crush Israel and big corporations.

Historically speaking, the Liberal interest has always been most deeply rooted in the protection of property rights.

ruggedscout98 said:That is a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and social movements... Joe Biden can claim to be a liberal all he wants, but his actual actions completely contradict him... if we're talking about true liberals, even Rod Blagojevich fit the bill better... it's just a matter of the centrist voters deciding the outcome (I mentioned this in another thread), which is why both Rod Blagojevich and Joe Biden tried to carve out space in that center. Joe Biden failed, Rod Blagojevich was slightly more successful, whereas someone like Bill Clinton actually pulled it off relatively well... in America, the Election Commission usually hands the win to whichever party manages to swallow the liberals more effectively.

And honestly, your constant whining shows you're totally missing what's actually happening on the political stage because you're clinging to some textbook theory that crashes headfirst into reality at every single micro-level. Just stop trying to lecture everyone; you've already dragged this into a five-post argument all because of your own fixations, even though your opponent was actually much closer to the facts than you are.
The media-driven voter might be the one deciding things, but let's not pretend a media-driven voter is the same thing as being a Liberal.

Susan Lopez2 said:Historically speaking, the Liberal interest has always been most deeply rooted in the protection of property rights.

I think I mentioned somewhere before that the Democratic Party is actually the economic right, but honestly, I’d describe them more as a messy cocktail of social anarchists and pure economic clientelism. Just because a few members happen to be pulling the strings on massive amounts of cash doesn't make them "right-wing" in any real sense; that whole setup is just built on shady public-private handshakes and semi-legal backroom deals.

The closest thing we have to the actual economic right is the Libertarian Party.

Jacob Lewis5 said:I actually brought up radical Liberals in the very first sentence of my opening post.
Don't worry about apologizing, I was just messing with you.
There aren't any wars fought for the reasons I listed—starting with the Crusader States, which were sparked by plagues, difficult trade routes through North Africa, or just the rich wanting to grab more land. Nothing exists that is inherently "bad." Religion, ideas, nations, smartphones, the internet, cars—none of it is good or bad on its own. We can make all of those things great or turn them into poison, but as far as I'm concerned, every single human invention is totally neutral.

I completely agree with the last part.

...but regarding the wars... I don't really feel like explaining the causes and pretexts of the Crusader States here right now, but essentially they started due to territorial expansion based on religious grounds... the Thirty Years' War was a typical religious conflict, the Hundred Years' War was about expanding territory... looking closer, the First North American War was essentially a religious war, Orthodox against Muslims, not to mention the American Civil War and so on.

...and yeah, liberalism emerged on an economic basis, strengthening the citizenry after the fall of feudalism and the need to protect private property. Later, this was expressed as reducing state influence on personal freedoms, and finally political tolerance and pluralism, while advocating for the protection of human rights from the very beginning.

Life, Liberty and Property... John Locke

ironpanther5 said:I think I mentioned somewhere before that the Democratic Party is actually the economic right, but honestly, I’d describe them more as a messy cocktail of social anarchists and pure economic clientelism. Just because a few members happen to be pulling the strings on massive amounts of cash doesn't make them "right-wing" in any real sense; that whole setup is just built on shady public-private handshakes and semi-legal backroom deals.

The closest thing we have to the actual economic right is the Libertarian Party.

Fair enough, in practice, that's likely how it plays out. However, their core ideology is Liberal capitalism. They don't include any social safety nets or protections for workers' rights in their platform. It is accurate to say they are non-nationalist and socially Liberal.

Susan Lopez2 said:Fair enough, in practice, that's likely how it plays out. However, their core ideology is Liberal capitalism. They don't include any social safety nets or protections for workers' rights in their platform. It is accurate to say they are non-nationalist and socially Liberal.

You've got a point there, especially from a social-left perspective, but honestly, just take a look at the Libertarian Party's economic platform. It's such a shame they aren't a major parliamentary player.

ironpanther5 said:And honestly, your constant whining shows you're totally missing what's actually happening on the political stage because you're clinging to some textbook theory that crashes headfirst into reality at every single micro-level. Just stop trying to lecture everyone; you've already dragged this into a five-post argument all because of your own fixations, even though your opponent was actually much closer to the facts than you are.
The media-driven voter might be the one deciding things, but let's not pretend a media-driven voter is the same thing as being a Liberal.

Give me some actual arguments if you want me to take you seriously.

Sean Sanders said:Fair enough. My point is simply that anything man-made rather than nature-made is artificial and unnatural, especially when people start trying to rewrite the rules of biology. Things humans invent can be changed, abolished, or replaced with something entirely new. Personally, I wouldn't call nations "evolution"; I’d call them a step backward. Why? Because borders, different languages, and varying mindsets act as friction against the progress of humanity and our planet. They are limitations, obstacles, and complications—an artificial fragmentation of a single human race. This division causes different parts of humanity to develop at different rates, leading to one group exploiting another, fueling wars, and endless psychological and political games. Humanity acting as one people, and the planet functioning as one global state, is the only truly natural and correct path. Ultimately, it’s what’s best for us all. The longer these artificial divisions persist, the harder it will be for humanity to break free from them. But hey, we can save that for next time.

If you want my humble—and let’s be honest, completely subjective—take on what a "natural state" actually looks like, I’d say the whole concept is an oxymoron, for heaven's sake.

Anything that wasn't cooked up by nature is technically "unnatural"—that much is obvious—but does that actually make it bad? I mean, look at it this way: there are all sorts of different types of tribes out there, some passive, some aggressive. Historically, people formed these groups specifically to protect themselves from the more aggressive ones—essentially, collectivism is what eventually managed to tame the raw savagery you seem to despise so much. And honestly, that same logic applies on a macro level too—when you look at it through the lens of national identity.

Sean Sanders said:To me, calling a nation a "primitive" or "animalistic" category feels a bit off. We've already covered this ground elsewhere.

So, you’re calling me out on the whole "natural" thing—implying I’m actually out here championing it? Honestly, you're being a bit contradictory in certain spots there—it feels like you're missing the nuance of my actual position.

Sean Sanders said:Well, that would be a total disaster for anyone with any sense of nationalism or tribal identity. But your argument that viewing things through a tribal lens is "natural"? Come on! Look at history—that kind of thinking is basically a horror movie waiting to happen. It’s essentially animalistic logic. It’s like marking out territory and then attacking the first outsider who wanders onto your turf. Look, I realize some people have been brainwashed or just lack foresight, but we’ve evolved past basic animal instincts. What are you actually describing? An animal kingdom. Thanks, but I'll pass; that's repulsive to me. It’s no wonder historical atrocities like the Holocaust happened if people view the world this way. If I view everyone as equal, I'm certainly not building a concentration camp, but if I start looking at things through a tribal lens... well, you see the pattern. It’s incredibly primitive. Sure, a nation is a social construct—Mother Nature didn't just tap the earth and say, "Okay, now there's the United States and then there's Mexico"—but still, let's be reasonable here.

Mother Nature didn't just show up one day and hand us the internet, computers, medicine, art, or science—it doesn't work like that. Those are all human constructs, really. And honestly, that’s precisely what sets us apart from primitive animals—well, places ourselves above them, anyway. The same logic applies to the concept of a nation.

Sean Sanders said:The classic response from those living in fear. It’s what happens when people let anxiety about nature and common sense take over. This is the inevitable result when basic logic and physical reality get pushed aside in favor of manufactured cults, whether they be nationalistic fervor, religious dogma, or other social constructs.

Sean Sanders said:Wow, you really went out of your way to twist my words there... Honestly. I wasn't even talking about communism. My focus is on valuing the individual, nature, and personal autonomy, though I personally view nations and religions as flawed constructs—they feel artificial and unnatural. I thought I made that quite clear. It feels like I’m having to explain myself just so you or someone else can try to trap me on a technicality. It seems like the goal is to pick apart my logic just to defend your own worldview and prove yours isn't under threat, which feels like a bit of a circular exercise. What I said was straightforward; you can agree or disagree (though it feels a bit like debating whether the Earth is round), but it was stated clearly. Any attempt to nitpick what I said feels less like a discussion and more like an attack. I'm not interested in debating things that are as plain as day.

Nationhood and religion aren't "cults"—you're mixing up your terms. While it's true plenty of wars have been triggered by religion, religion itself isn't the cause; the cause is always greed for power and wealth. Religion, nationality, race—those are just the tools used to manipulate the masses. But that doesn't make those concepts inherently bad. It's not all black and white. Blaming religion is kind of like blaming science for the atomic bomb and calling science regressive. Even nationalism is relative to time and space; being a nationalist in one era or region is nothing like being one in another. Actually, right now is exactly when we need culture and its various fruits most, because globalization is making everyone eat, work, look, and think exactly the same way—essentially leading us toward a kind of mental slavery. Otherwise, this asceticism you seem so drawn to is pretty characteristic of radical right-wingers—including folks like Hitler and various nationalists throughout history. You aren't being consistent, even though you claim everything is "plain as day," because you've reduced everything to a single dimension. It sounds like you've got one grandfather who was a hardline conservative and another who was a staunch liberal, so you've just clumsily mashed together whatever ideas happen to suit you. If you haven't read Knut Hamsun, you should—he advocated for an ascetic lifestyle and was a favorite of the Third Reich 🙂. He’s a bit dull if you ask me, but you might actually enjoy him.