Will the Left survive the Millenials?

[FrankieK]

Right, so what was the point of this then? Did you actually answer my question?




Someone asking for a shred of logic behind you having an opinion isn't someone 'trying to do something about it'. My word, conservatives and their paranoia.

I am of the opinion that I did. You are welcome to ask me for my logic, but seeing that it's my opinion I have no requirement to prove my logic to you.

One last question before I watch season 2 of Narcos, is there a God/Allah/Yahweh? Provide proof, needless to say.

 

[RanzB]

I am of the opinion that I did.

Again, with no proof or logic. But as Newt pointed out...

One last question before I watch season 2 of Narcos, is there a God/Allah/Yahweh? Provide proof, needless to say.

No idea.

 

[Alan]

Reading science fiction, chick lit and fantasy novels by people of colour for a year brought home to me just how white my reading world was

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ors-for-12-months-what-i-learned-surprised-me

Guardianistas :crylaugh:

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

It is not for me to put words into NarrowBandFtw's mouth.

I'm waiting for his factual proof and/or justification.

It seems I'll probably wait all weekend.

Sweet Zombie Jesus you deluded lefty! I actually had Friday beers to attend to etc, otherwise known as "a life", you should look into it.

Now back to class, I gave you a link with a reasoned dissertation that supports my position to the n-th degree, you replied less than 4 minutes later which is an impossible time to have considered that lengthy source, you might, note: might, get more "proof" if you bother to proces that which you were already given

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Facts also matter if you're attempting to explain how you came to a conclusion, even if it's your own opinion. Like saying
"Modern day liberalism is doing its level best to become outright fascism"

Especially when it's a crock of ****.

Settle down Beavis, I laid it out very succinctly already ...

 

[RanzB]

Settle down Beavis, I laid it out very succinctly already ...

No problem Butthead, that post doesn't provide anything resembling proof either, unless you consider inane rambling proof, which no one should.

 

[Rkootknir]

Sweet Zombie Jesus you deluded lefty! I actually had Friday beers to attend to etc, otherwise known as "a life", you should look into it.

Now back to class, I gave you a link with a reasoned dissertation that supports my position to the n-th degree, you replied less than 4 minutes later which is an impossible time to have considered that lengthy source, you might, note: might, get more "proof" if you bother to proces that which you were already given

The problem is that you are associating something that is almost completely non-liberal with some sort of pejoritave of the word "liberal".

A liberal person will never impose his \ her will upon anybody else. The very essence of liberalism (IMO) can be summed up by Messrs Jefferson & Locke:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Somewhere in the passage of time some political activists have tried to redefine the word "liberal", in such a way that what is called a "liberal" in contempary discourse is, as far as I can see, most closely approximated by the word "Marxist". Now, as per Bakunin (he's my argument from authority ):

"They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up."

In other words, you are arguing against the wrong "threat" here. Your "threat" is Marxism - not liberalism.

 

[Xarog]

The problem is that you are associating something that is almost completely non-liberal with some sort of pejoritave of the word "liberal".

A liberal person will never impose his \ her will upon anybody else. The very essence of liberalism (IMO) can be summed up by Messrs Jefferson & Locke:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Somewhere in the passage of time some political activists have tried to redefine the word "liberal", in such a way that what is called a "liberal" in contempary discourse is, as far as I can see, most closely approximated by the word "Marxist". Now, as per Bakunin (he's my argument from authority ):

"They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up."

In other words, you are arguing against the wrong "threat" here. Your "threat" is Marxism - not liberalism.

You are mistaken if you think the liberalism of today has anything to do with the classical liberalism you've just made references to.

 

[Swa]

Protecting freedom of speech involves protecting the voices of people with whom you may violently disagree. In my youth, liberals would defend the right of neo-Nazis to march down Main Street. I cannot imagine anyone on the left making that case today.

Of course those in power today don't understand this. To them freedom of speech means you can say what doesn't offend me but as soon as you point out something true about beachgoers we'll take you to court. It's because they are hypocrites just like the ones who fought for freedom but as soon as it was required to extend some freedom it was nowhere to be found. In truth they were only fighting for their own freedom to oppress.

Becoming far worse. But easy to answer if you want to be harshly honest with yourself. Which has become extremely hard for any liberal. Honesty, that is. Because the liberal vision failed to bear fruit in the effort to raise everybody up to the same level, it then morhped into a race to drag everybody down to the same level instead. At that point honesty and liberal values were ditched in an increasingly hysterical response to the failing ideology. Anything but face a reality that destroys all your hopes and dreams.

A dying ideology makes its proponents very dangerous. Just like any cornered animal.

After WWII liberal ideals were untested and theoretical, no evidence of its weakness for anyone to point to. It was great-sounding and humanistic, held the high ground. More than half a century later the debris of its failed attempts to turn the theory into reality is lying around in giant stinking heaps, growing bigger and more dangerous each day. There's evidence, heaps of it, that the ideology could never and will never work. Like a cornered animal the liberal/progressive/regressive has turned nasty in a big way.

Dangerous times. Not only because the left has become oppressive and dishonest, but also because they are pushing the middle to the far right.


Will the Left survive the Millenials? Question is, will the left survive the mounting backlash from the right and what used to be the middle. I don't think so. I think it is going to get very ugly. The left has stuck its fingers firmly in its ears and won't back off to relieve the fast-mounting pressure. Idiotically trying to screw the lid farther down on the pressure cooker that is way too far under pressure already.

The millenials are irrelevant babies.

That is nonsense. The left and liberals are not the same thing. At one point the left was made up of liberals but that changed. To say that the left or liberals changed is inaccurate as it implies that the people who held those views somehow changed when it is the makeup of the left and the political landscape that changed. Today the left is made up mostly of SJWs, a group which claim to be about progressive equality but in reality they are super conservatives trying to force their own values and saving people from things we don't wish to be saved from.

As for the millennials, the world is changing. It's no longer about going out and working in a factory like it was when the liberals were fighting the conservatives. The new world requires absolute freedom and those who can't provide it be they liberal or conservative will be left behind.

 

[Rkootknir]

You are mistaken if you think the liberalism of today has anything to do with the classical liberalism you've just made references to.

On a personal note: I refuse to let dumb people redefine words from their original meaning... I am a liberal and will always be one - albeit from the anarchist POV.

What is interesting is that, in the USA at least, that both the mainstream "left" and the "right" now appear to be authoritarian. Which, from the left, is pretty much exactly what Bakunin warned against.

 

[Xarog]

What is interesting is that, in the USA at least, that both the mainstream "left" and the "right" now appear to be authoritarian. Which, from the left, is pretty much exactly what Bakunin warned against.

A natural consequence of collective anxiety. The more dire things appear, the less risks anyone is willing to take. And trusting unknown quantities like the "other side" becomes a dubious proposition. It doesn't take long for group think and identity politics to take hold in such situations.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

On a personal note: I refuse to let dumb people redefine words from their original meaning... I am a liberal and will always be one - albeit from the anarchist POV.

What is interesting is that, in the USA at least, that both the mainstream "left" and the "right" now appear to be authoritarian. Which, from the left, is pretty much exactly what Bakunin warned against.

Horseshoe theory... Although in that sense it's not the mainstream but rather the far edges of the continuum bending in towards authoritarianism.

 

[Xarog]

Horseshoe theory... Although in that sense it's not the mainstream but rather the far edges of the continuum bending in towards authoritarianism.

It's a bullschit theory though. It assumes that the people on the extremes are making decisions based on their political ideology. It's much the same as the assumption that people engaging in economic activity make rational decisions.

 

[Vrotappel]

http://www.reaxxion.com/7182/how-sjws-took-over-science-fiction-and-how-theyre-losing-control

Scary crazy ****! Luckily there's so much good stuff still out there to read or play.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The publisher of Reaxxion is Daryush Valizadeh, more popularly known as Roosh V.

Tells you everything you need to know, really.

 

[ponder]

Tells you everything you need to know, really.

I started writing a long reply and gave up.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Yeah or we'd all fall into the conservatard way of thinking that facts matter less than feelings/opinion on a subject

[video=youtube;xnhJWusyj4I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I[/video]

Curious (as in, not) how the right's muh-feelings-over-facts gets ignored. Also their multitudes of attacks on free speech are also ignored. And their actual assault on minorities' right to vote, the most fundamental way to express your view, is also ignored.