Liberalism Without Illusions

[proud PETA member]

Our form of government is a representative Republic. Our method of electing leaders is democracy. Is this the democracy you speak of defending? If so I agree.

I think Dems cheated in 2000. I'm sure they think Republicans cheated in xxx years. How do we fix it? If both sides can't have faith in fair elections, we are toast. How do we "defend democracy"?

 

[Hume]

I think Dems cheated in 2000.

I think outer space people live in the United States undetected. Do I need evidence? Or does saying it make it true?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What is wrong with that?

A lot.

First, modern liberalism, whatever that is--and I'd say it's more Progressive Leftism, depends on people being altruistic. That is, individuals are willing to give up their personal views, wealth, economic status, etc., in favor of the group as a whole. Not happening. Not today, not yesterday, not a thousand years ago. People are inherently greedy, narcissistic, and looking out for themselves first and foremost.

Second, and this derives from the first, it requires that everybody be accommodated. No one is left out. Participation trophies for everyone!

If you bother to wade through the OP's article that was linked, Gaston makes a long-winded dissertation that argues for the above. That is, he says a modern liberal society will be inclusive and altruistic. That isn't happening except by force of government. That means it takes a dictatorship of virtue to bring about a Progressive, Leftist, "modern liberal" society.

It also means that society becomes ineffective, chaotic, and crumbles into ruin. Nothing can effectively get done because of the need to be 100% inclusive of everyone's thoughts, feelings, desires, and whatnot. Government becomes a dictatorship deciding how to take from the productive and rich and equalize that by giving to the indolent and lazy. The point of such a society is, first and foremost, for everyone in it to be able to live a child-like existence free from want or worry.

In a working society, the apropos metaphor might be, if you want an omelet, put in the work and you are free to do so, but recognize that you're going to break a few eggs in the process. Nobody's going to hand you one and if you don't put some effort you might starve. No one will particularly care since they know that was your choice.

 

[Hume]

First, modern liberalism, whatever that is--and I'd say it's more Progressive Leftism, depends on people being altruistic.

False. No liberal believes that.

 

[Hume]

Gaston makes a long-winded dissertation that argues for the above. That is, he says a modern liberal society will be inclusive and altruistic.

No, just the opposite.

 

[LichGold]

The Democrats' obsession with identity politics was one downfall. Trans rights? WHO FUCKING CARES!

It's that it was a cornerstone. And it's much less that it was about trans rights as much as it was about pederasty of fostercare children and the cost of conversions.

Other than that it was about narcotic flow, misandry, prostitution, social destabilization, graft, sticking it to whitey, and getting caught for rigging the election(and you know damn well it was rigged because you had to pick between failure and keeping abortion(maybe) for vax mandate. And you chose victory and vax mandate and losing abortion) and you know that, because, that's what happened.



How else can you absolutely know what something was all about besides looking at what actually happened afterwards?





Duuuuuuuhhhhhhhh. Idiots

 

[AProudLefty]

A lot.

First, modern liberalism, whatever that is--and I'd say it's more Progressive Leftism, depends on people being altruistic. That is, individuals are willing to give up their personal views, wealth, economic status, etc., in favor of the group as a whole. Not happening. Not today, not yesterday, not a thousand years ago. People are inherently greedy, narcissistic, and looking out for themselves first and foremost.

Second, and this derives from the first, it requires that everybody be accommodated. No one is left out. Participation trophies for everyone!

If you bother to wade through the OP's article that was linked, Gaston makes a long-winded dissertation that argues for the above. That is, he says a modern liberal society will be inclusive and altruistic. That isn't happening except by force of government. That means it takes a dictatorship of virtue to bring about a Progressive, Leftist, "modern liberal" society.

It also means that society becomes ineffective, chaotic, and crumbles into ruin. Nothing can effectively get done because of the need to be 100% inclusive of everyone's thoughts, feelings, desires, and whatnot. Government becomes a dictatorship deciding how to take from the productive and rich and equalize that by giving to the indolent and lazy. The point of such a society is, first and foremost, for everyone in it to be able to live a child-like existence free from want or worry.

In a working society, the apropos metaphor might be, if you want an omelet, put in the work and you are free to do so, but recognize that you're going to break a few eggs in the process. Nobody's going to hand you one and if you don't put some effort you might starve. No one will particularly care since they know that was your choice.

In other words, the unwanted is rejected. Sounds familiar?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

False. No liberal believes that.

I can see that. The problem is, no liberal (aka Leftist) is rooted in reality. Their ideas have proven unworkable for over 200 years at a minimum.

 

[proud PETA member]

In other words, the unwanted is rejected. Sounds familiar?

Quit believing you're some kind of victim. Get off ur ass and be wanted. Be needed. Be in demand. Pave your own way. Uncle Sam isn't your answer, EVER.

 

[LichGold]

I can see that. The problem is, no liberal (aka Leftist) is rooted in reality. Their ideas have proven unworkable for over 200 years at a minimum.

No, the problem is that they WERE the party that was SUPPOSED to be rooted in reality, and instead, they just said, "fuckit we're going to be the party of yeasty mangina emotivism."

I blame vast constituent wide opiate based brain damage. Im probably right.







Democrats function by killing their own constituency. It's basic dope dealing 101 tactics. You have to kill your underlings regularly or they'll eventually rat you out.

If you're killing your own constituency, eventually you're going to start losing again. And the problem there is trump is saving you ungrateful junky faggots.

So my point is, just go score some fentanyl and see how long you can hold your breath.

And lets put up more george floyd statues. Fking patriot. Killed more junkies with that realization than chicago gun crime.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In other words, the unwanted is rejected. Sounds familiar?

Wrong! The fringe is rejected. They can have their say, but they aren't taken seriously. The Left wants the fringe to be equal to larger minorities and the majority on everything.

I'll use the example of the Resolution copper mine here in Arizona. The world's largest mining company wants to open the world's largest copper mine. It will eventually leave, approximately, a crater a mile in diameter more or less on the ground that is being mined. Copper is a vital mineral resource to modern society and makes much of what we have and use possible. There is currently a world shortage of it.

The Left has spent over a decade fighting the opening of this mine on various, specious, grounds. The latest variant is that it is "sacred ground" to the White Mountain Apachie tribe. Mind you, that's based on the claims--with no real physical evidence-- of a handful of long-time radical Leftist protesters within the tribe. Their latest ploy was to back two women from the tribe suing that they would no longer be able to collect "sacred" acorns in the area of the mine--

Now, they are doing this in a couple of 5-gallon buckets and using an old bicycle wheel with some rabbit fence duct taped to it to sort the acorns and make a flour from it. They also admit that the acorns are easier to procure around the trailer park they live in because the septic system provides the trees more water...

In the Leftist / Progressive view, this handful of people with questionable objections to the mine should have equal weight to the needs of society as a whole, the mining company, and thousands of people who see the mine as something that will enrich their lives because it will provide employment directly or indirectly.

For the Left, these few people and their objections have to be fully accommodated, and the mining company kicked to the curb because they are already rich and can maybe mine somewhere else, maybe...

 

[AProudLefty]

Quit believing you're some kind of victim. Get off ur ass and be wanted. Be needed. Be in demand. Pave your own way. Uncle Sam isn't your answer, EVER.

Huh?

 

[Hume]

I can see that. The problem is, no liberal (aka Leftist) is rooted in reality. Their ideas have proven unworkable for over 200 years at a minimum.

blah blah blah

you're a dope

 

[LichGold]

blah blah blah

you're a dope

Sez homocrat

 

[Hume]

Sez homocrat

Seriously, are you a teenager?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

blah blah blah

you're a dope

Here's an example of what I was talking about in post #31:

"Just how bad is the state of free speech in England?” an American podcaster asked me at the end of August. Not great, I said, but nothing like as cataclysmic as some U.S. commentators claim. I mean, we’re hardly North Korea.

I spoke too soon. Two days later, the Irish scriptwriter Graham Linehan was met at Heathrow Airport by five armed police, taken to a cell, and held for 19 hours. His offense? Three posts on X in which, in admittedly strong language, he told trans activists what he thought of them.

When did England give up on free speech?

How did things get so bad in the land of Magna Carta? Under what law was Graham Linehan detained?

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Liberty Lost: The Era When Britain Became A Cautionary Tale On Free Speech​

Britain has built a censorship machine using 1980s laws and the Online Safety Act to criminalize discussion of demographic change. While ignoring real harms like doxxing, the state prosecutes tweets more harshly than violence, turning England into a prison of digital illiteracy and fear.

Liberty Lost: The Era When Britain Became A Cautionary Tale On Free Speech

Britain has built a censorship machine using 1980s laws and the Online Safety Act to criminalize discussion of demographic change. While ignoring real harms like doxxing, the state prosecutes tweets more harshly than violence, turning England into a prison of digital illiteracy and fear.

restorationist.org.uk

Today in the UK a tiny, fringe, minority can dictate what speech is acceptable, particularly if that tiny, fringe group is on the Left. It is the tyranny of the few on the mass of society in the name of "equality." It is a complete lie and nothing more than tyranny itself.

 

[AProudLefty]

Here's an example of what I was talking about in post #31:

"Just how bad is the state of free speech in England?” an American podcaster asked me at the end of August. Not great, I said, but nothing like as cataclysmic as some U.S. commentators claim. I mean, we’re hardly North Korea.

I spoke too soon. Two days later, the Irish scriptwriter Graham Linehan was met at Heathrow Airport by five armed police, taken to a cell, and held for 19 hours. His offense? Three posts on X in which, in admittedly strong language, he told trans activists what he thought of them.

When did England give up on free speech?

How did things get so bad in the land of Magna Carta? Under what law was Graham Linehan detained?

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Liberty Lost: The Era When Britain Became A Cautionary Tale On Free Speech​

Britain has built a censorship machine using 1980s laws and the Online Safety Act to criminalize discussion of demographic change. While ignoring real harms like doxxing, the state prosecutes tweets more harshly than violence, turning England into a prison of digital illiteracy and fear.

Liberty Lost: The Era When Britain Became A Cautionary Tale On Free Speech

Britain has built a censorship machine using 1980s laws and the Online Safety Act to criminalize discussion of demographic change. While ignoring real harms like doxxing, the state prosecutes tweets more harshly than violence, turning England into a prison of digital illiteracy and fear.

restorationist.org.uk

Today in the UK a tiny, fringe, minority can dictate what speech is acceptable, particularly if that tiny, fringe group is on the Left. It is the tyranny of the few on the mass of society in the name of "equality." It is a complete lie and nothing more than tyranny itself.

Hate speech and inciting violence against the minorities are illegal in the UK.

 

[AProudLefty]

A lot.

First, modern liberalism, whatever that is--and I'd say it's more Progressive Leftism, depends on people being altruistic.

Republicans believe in altruism too, or at least they say.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hate speech and inciting violence against the minorities are illegal in the UK.

That's not what was going on here. Someone questioned those minority groups, like the trans community--simply had a contrary position--and got arrested for it. No "hate speech" or attempt to incite violence, simply disagreeing strongly with some radical minority that the government protects.

 

[AProudLefty]

That's not what was going on here. Someone questioned those minority groups, like the trans community--simply had a contrary position--and got arrested for it. No "hate speech" or attempt to incite violence, simply disagreeing strongly with some radical minority that the government protects.

"if all else fails, punch him in the balls" is a call for violence. The UK law is clear.