The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by DCLXVI
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

Interesting subject but you are clearly biased so i will pass on this one.

"zing"
"OUCH!
"If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a threatening question!"

My wife has dibs on our copy of reformed liberal david mahmets book:
"The secret knowledge;
On the dismantling of the American culture"
subtitle:"The struggle of the left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable, sisyphean burden. I speak as a reformed liberal."

I AM CHOMPING AT THE BIT for my turn at it ;( I wish she would read faster!).
Good post o.p.

edit on 27-7-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Think i made my point and demonstrated that he was wrong.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so your view of someone who is liberal,,,, is that that liberal person cares more about everyone,, then themself winning? and this is non competitive

Are we talking about 19th century liberals or modern day ones?

19th century liberals were very much free market proponents within a strong legal regulatory environment (see Adam Smith and read his caveats carefully - for instance he believed that public corporations would be ruined by directors - a little know perspective - and that the rule of law and the protection of rights was very important).

Modern day liberals, within a UK context at least, are fond of spending relatively small sums of their own money on their own pet social projects but large amounts of other peoples' money. Throwing other peoples' money at problems seems to be a left wing pre-occupation, although right wing governments can be just as guilty.

Personally, I believe that society should provide both a safety net and real opportunities for members of society, with progression based on ability. Strength (economic/military/moral) however is the trait that allows all other traits to survive.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
because in order to be competitive there has to be losers and failures,,,,,, so you view being conservative as being a winner and not caring but encouraging others to lose and fail?

I am not a globalist in the sense that I feel that infant industries should be protected, as should GM and Ford due to their importance. On the other hand, a society entirely insulated from competition soon falls to another society on a macro-economic basis.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

But if cultural and moral relativism are so almighty in the leftist viewpoint, from whence comes the thundering righteous tone with which lefties condemn all who do not sign off on the blissed-out multikulti, pansexuAl vibeocracy?

I don't think "lefties" care if you "sign off" on liberalism...they won't condemn you for that fact alone...but if you want to try to promote the falsehood that your own culture is better than someone elses...then they will call you out on it.

Aaahh.. I see, so the nazi culture in the third reich is just as valid as the modern socialist multi cultural one.
Gotcha!

reply to post by ollncasino


about free markets and regulation,,,, the reason i believe liberals desiree regulation is a lack of trust of man,,,, today and in history past,,,, the only reason I feel the need for regulations on corporations is when it comes to potential dangerous materials used in the products,, ( dangerous to the consumer and environment) ,,. I think the importance of the consumer ( individual human) and the environment out weigh the necessity for a corporation to degrade the consumer and environment,..,,,., competition is good and great,,, but the reality is civilization works with a ying yanged blend of competition and cooperation,,.,.,. the individual is a part of the whole,,,, each individual does their duty and reaps the benefits of the whole,,,,,,


in regards to your gm ford comment,,,, im not sure what you meant by it,,,,,,, you dont believe the taxpayers money should be tossed around,,,, but those corporations deserved to be bailed out? what about all the private corporations that receive government tax money that is used for private profit? what is the conservative feelings on the big bank bailouts?

reply to post by FailedProphet



You are likely right. While your premise is pretty solid, since you are biased it is doubtful that no amount of truth and logic would suffice for anyone to "win". Your decision is predetermined

Lucky for you, this time you pretty much have it nailed. Now if we could just address that nagging lack of humanism from what passes for "conservative" in todays world.

Oh, i long for the day when "conservative" is defined more by conservative libertarian values.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

Failed,

I am pretty sure I get your question. How can liberals, a free thinking group I proudly associate myself with, claim to be so tolerant while at the same time be so judgmental? What you are not seeing is that it is your intolerance of the rights of others that we tend to be judgmental about. Sure, practice your religion, whatever it is...unless your practice infringes on me or others in my community. Practice your traditions, beliefs, hobbies, whatever. But again, don't infringe on me or the members of my community. Pretty simple really.

Well, I hate to come to a thread late and there may already be a few pages of answers to this particular post but I am going to post anyhow.

I found your post to be profoundly interesting. In it you state that everyone is free to practice whatever religion or belief they want as long as "infringe" on you or the others in the community. Which religion are you speaking of in particular? I have seen very little resistance by "liberals" when "alternative" or otherwise confrontational religions take to the streets, or the courts, and infringe upon the rights of those that don't agree with them. So, in your liberal mind, is it OK if those that agree with you "infringe" on the rights of those that don't agree with you? Because that is what I am reading in your statement. You are OK as long as you agree with it.

Basically you are antisemitic. You just think you are being "free thinking" by hating those that disagree with you.

reply to post by FailedProphet


You have no idea what the difference is between liberal and conservatives. You base your little statement and it's implications on poor information. It's would be difficult to even respond to this because it is so messed up. Like debating whether green horses or blue horses can gallop faster. Green and blue horses don't exist.
You have been programmed by the media to accept many incorrect premises and based on those premises you are developing a very dangerous ideology. Unfortunately your not alone with thinking like this.
My advice is to not accept the BS that you hear on any media. Trust nothing until you have really researched it.

reply to post by FailedProphet


HA! I'm very sorry but I'm really smart, so I can't understand how people make such illogical claims and still think they're right. The best idea I have is that you're a government shill, so I'll just assume that and carry on my day, because my post will simply waste my time while barely making a dent in the ignorance that is thrust upon everyone every day. So I'll just say, have fun being an ignorant, prejudiced, miserable human being

S&F for OP

I don't consider myself 'conservative' in the mainstream sense, but there is a lot of hypocrisy on the left when it comes to tolerance.

The left puts tolerance up on a pedestal and claims it to be one of their guiding principles, but they are the least tolerant of people who hold different views than they do about gay marriage, gun rights, or any of their hot button issues they get so worked up over. Suddenly all this tolerance is out the window. It's basically, "equality for everyone, but only if you agree with us" - pretty big contradiction.

reply to post by SilentKoala


It's also not true.

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Libbies and lefties, riddle me this: how do you resolve the paradox stated in the topic's subject line?

Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another,

No, that isn't it in the slightest.

and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism. Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things."

it isn't about aesthetics either.

Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another. (Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?)

False. Actually what many liberals believe in is the morality of the Enlightenment and the people who follow in that tradition.

If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference? 

Try starting without the snide accusations. In practice it is because the illiberal traditional codes have been pretty consistently oppressive for millenia regarding race, gender and sexual preference just because they could.

Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions. You might not agree with these codes, you might think they are wrong, but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent. 

And so what? What if somebody is a perfectly consistent bigoted asshole privileging their particular geographical location, ethnicity and religion for little reason other than it is what they are born into? Being consistent in unthinking aggressive bigotry isn't a virtue.


Let's try with this of waht people actually think.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ollncasino

People divide themselves into groups around the world to compete with other groups.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Complete nonsense.

It could be observed that your response merely proves my point. Liberalism struggles with the concept that people naturally divide themselves into groups.

People identify with their family, ethnic/geographical groups, religion and nations and happily compete with other groups on those bases.

To pretend otherwise merely demonstrates the inherent intellectual bankruptcy at the core of modern liberalism.

Liberals are perfectly aware of this---and they believe this behavior is immoral and unjustifiable prejudice and violence, and they advocate a personal worldview and universal morality which fights against such atavistic impulses.


Throughout history, conservatives have bitterly fought liberals of their time in defense of principles of dead liberals.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
You've stated an OPINION about why "people divide themselves into groups". That it's purely to engage in competition.

People divide themselves, and are divided, by much more than a desire to compete. In fact many disparate groups work TOGETHER while other very similar groups compete violently.

Competition between individuals and groups for scarce resources is as old as the human race.

Liberals struggle with this concept.

That's bull#. Liberals have a more sophisticated viewpoint about superior ways to resolve such conflicts, something better than "I've got mine, you can go Cheney yourself."

Originally posted by mbkennel
That's bull#. Liberals have a more sophisticated viewpoint about superior ways to resolve such conflicts, something better than "I've got mine, you can go Cheney yourself."

Co-operation rather than competition only works if both parties agree to co-operate.

While liberals perhaps wish to find a compromise, that is impossible if the other party does not.

I wouldn't call the liberal perspective sophisticated and superior. I would characterise it as naive.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by mbkennel
That's bull#. Liberals have a more sophisticated viewpoint about superior ways to resolve such conflicts, something better than "I've got mine, you can go Cheney yourself."

Co-operation rather than competition only works if both parties agree to co-operate.

While liberals perhaps wish to find a compromise, that is impossible if the other party does not.

I wouldn't call the liberal perspective sophisticated and superior. I would characterise it as naive.

Yes, but that's because you don't actually understand liberals or liberalism... again I say, define liberal...

Go on... let's all work off the same page here...

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Yes, but that's because you don't actually understand liberals or liberalism... again I say, define liberal...

Go on... let's all work off the same page here...

Modern day or 19th century? British, European or American?

The word liberal means many things depending on who you ask.

In the UK, a liberal is someone who wishes for relatively high intervention/regulation in the economy, a large government, strives for the rich to be taxed heavily (but not necessarily them-self) and for the allocation of resources to be 'fair', but again not usually to the extent that it materially impacts their own standard of living in a negative rather than positive manner.

Where are you from and how do you define liberal?

Originally posted by FailedProphet

The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental.

In regards to the general outlook and soap-box toting aspect of many liberals you are absolutely correct.

Originally posted by FailedProphet
Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions. You might not agree with these codes, you might think they are wrong, but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent. 

Well I suppose they are "time honored traditions", however so is much of the liberal rhetoric; it simply comes from a (broadly speaking) humanist perspective, which is just as ideologically identifiable as constitutionalism and certainly more so than the Bible, the latter which is quite the opposite of consistent, "self" or otherwise. Paradox is evident there as well. They will speak volumes about ideas like "freedom" or "love" from and yet judge, condemn, ostracize, and persecute those who do not agree.

You are indulging in transparent rhetoric, painting liberals with a black brush while skipping blithely by the same "hysterically judgmental" tendencies in conservatives. In fact those institutions and traditions you mention are precisely what is painted on most of those right wing soap boxes.

Folks is folks, and the tendency to shout vitriolic, vein popping, self righteous tirades is part and parcel to the human condition; and the further you swing off center with any ideology the more marked that tendency becomes.

Personally, I think both sides are full of it.

Careful, you are skirting the edge of your own hysterically judgmental (and certainly hypocritical) tirade. On that note, for the record, the ability to use a phrase like "morally relativist" doesn't make you objective, or even calm, it just makes you pedantic.

Originally posted by FailedProphet
But if cultural and moral relativism are so almighty in the leftist viewpoint, from whence comes the thundering righteous tone with which lefties condemn all who do not sign off on the blissed-out multikulti, pansexuAl vibeocracy?

From the same place your own thundering righteousness come from. Funny thing that. It's just the talking points that are different.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Yes, but that's because you don't actually understand liberals or liberalism... again I say, define liberal...

Go on... let's all work off the same page here...

Modern day or 19th century? British, European or American?

The word liberal means many things depending on who you ask.

In the UK, a liberal is someone who wishes for relatively high intervention/regulation in the economy, a large government, strives for the rich to be taxed heavily (but not necessarily them-self) and for the allocation of resources to be 'fair', but again not usually to the extent that it materially impacts their own standard of living in a negative rather than positive manner.

Where are you from and how do you define liberal?

edit on 28-7-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

That's NOT really what Liberal means. You know that I suppose.

Here, go read some books on liberals and liberalism. Figure out who or what you actually have an issue with and then start a thread about those people.

The "liberal" you seem to want to define in this thread is almost a parody.

If you want a SERIOUS conversation (not just a political polemic) learn more about liberals and start over,

Few are arguing that you're wrong, we're all arguing that you don't know what liberal means.

BTW: Born and bred in the US, lived and started a business in London, now live in Ireland. My job takes me all over the place though.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by mbkennel
That's bull#. Liberals have a more sophisticated viewpoint about superior ways to resolve such conflicts, something better than "I've got mine, you can go Cheney yourself."

Co-operation rather than competition only works if both parties agree to co-operate.

While liberals perhaps wish to find a compromise, that is impossible if the other party does not.

I wouldn't call the liberal perspective sophisticated and superior. I would characterise it as naive.

what are the parties within civilization that do not wish to compromise and cooperate with civilization?

Originally posted by longlostbrother
That's NOT really what Liberal means. You know that I suppose.

Here, go read some books on liberals and liberalism. Figure out who or what you actually have an issue with and then start a thread about those people.

The "liberal" you seem to want to define in this thread is almost a parody.

If you want a SERIOUS conversation (not just a political polemic) learn more about liberals and start over,

Few are arguing that you're wrong, we're all arguing that you don't know what liberal means.

Could you be kind enough to descend from your ivory tower and share what you think a liberal is?

Or would that be below you?