I'm a Liberal. Ask me anything

I'm a Liberal. Ask me anything.

Real questions will get real answers. Troll questions will get troll answers.

Other urls found in this thread:

politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

What does it mean to be a liberal?

Do you spit or swallow?

do you support Trumps attack on Syria? and why?

How do you differentiate legitimate questions from bait? xD

Are you on Sup Forums to fuck around with angry manlets aswell?

whats your opinion on safe spaces? im being serious, do you think they have a place in the world?

What is your position on Gun Rights?

Why do you advocate communism like ACHA? Why don't you just pay for your services like a capitalist society should? Do you feel entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care for your family for free?

To me it means being progressive. Being able to critically examine the status quo in light of new information, and be able to get out of your comfort zone and make changes when it makes sense to. Tradition for its own sake is stagnation.

I'm not up to date on the Syria stuff

I use my own judgement

are you a neo-liberal (i.e. reactionary) or classical liberal?

>being liberal is progressive

Why do you assume conservatives only respect and follow tradition for its own sake?

Everyone has their own safe space. Sup Forums is one too. You can't surround yourself with antagonistic conflict all the time, but you can't avoid it either. A balance is best. You should spend some time in an echo chamber for emotional health and some time around hostile opinions for intellectual health.

More guns makes a society less safe, not more.

What did it feel like in November to watch your candidate lose, your party drop over 900 seats, your ideology get utterly rejected in the west, and realize that the left won't be in power again for a generation?

politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

you dont know what the word reactionary means, but you must think it sounds cool

liberals are regressive, not progressive

Do you think whites will willingly give up America and become a minority without a fight?

Why do you support degenerates getting AIDS, letting babies get killed under the guise of "womens rights", and mass Muslim immigration?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how worried are you about the upcoming helicopter rides?

I'm not sure what the difference is. Society has decided that my stances on various issues are "the liberal" stance, so I go with it.

my experience with conservatives is they have difficulty questioning what they were raised to believe

That's human nature really, it's hard to examine your own ideas critically and admit you were wrong about things, but I personally find that liberals are better at it. In general of course, exceptions always exist.

I was disappointed, I thought America had progressed beyond that kind of fear mongering. But ultimately our day to day lives won't change because of who's in the white house, and I expect the pendulum will swing back in a term or three.

racial pride is a form of tribalism. Even if every other race were killed off and all of humanity were whites, we'd just find other ways to divide ourselves and say "THOSE PEOPLE are causing all the problems"

it never ends, unless you end it.

1

Take the compass test, honestly and post it. Many liberals are surprised to learn they aren't. What makes you think you are a liberal?

In your mind, what will the be outcome of the left's never-ending crusade against fathers and their successfully legislating the demise of the family unit?

>I'm not up to date on the Syria stuff

A reactionary is one that supports reversal of liberalization of the 18th and 19th century in order to use government as a means to suppress thought, speech, social, as well as economic and financial relationships..

Do you believe the State should have no role in regulating behavior, whether it be economic or social?

Yeah, progressivism and liberalism are two separate things, and you've totally fucked the definition of conservatism. We don't keep the same policies for tradition's sake, we keep them because if they're working, changing them drastically holds no benefits.

Do you think you will remain a leftist after your likely future run-in with the family court system in which you are stripped of your life's earnings, alienated from your children, and harnessed by the state to live out the rest of your days as a child support- and alimony-paying worker drone?

Well the state always has to regulate behavior to some degree. We can't go out and steal and murder. That wouldn't be a very functional society.

The government does have a role to play in governing us.

I don't intend to have children. Can't stand them.

Right, that's the limitation of government
To enforce property laws.

Property entails you life, your possessions and your livelihood.

Read The Law from Fredric Bastiat ; great philosopher on what government should and should not regulate

Do you think your distaste for children is independent of your political views or do you have self-awareness of the propaganda you've digested in your years on earth that have turned you and many other westerners against procreation?

do you support the attack on Syria?

the problem with saying what "the government" can or can't do is that anything the government decides not to involve itself in creates a power vacuum that other entities will enter to fill the role of governance

If we get rid of the FDA, then the food manufacturers will govern what goes into our food. So you have to make a decision, who do you want deciding what an acceptable level of mercury in your fish is? the fish companies, or the government? Who's less likely to fuck us over for profit?

I side with the government, at least they're somewhat answerable to the will of the people

liberals are not leftists

What do you think is the benefit of importing cheap foreign labor that inflates the crime rate, devalues local labor which lowers wages throughout the job market, and fundamentally changes the culture and demographic to your detriment? Do you think "diversity" is worth it? Why?

This is true to varying degrees right now in both America and Europe, so take your pick

If you're left of Reagan you're a subhuman communist in my mind - I don't care for your nuance.

My distaste for children mainly comes from being around children. One of my friends in high school was a real ladies' man, got all the pussy. Wound up with 2 kids by age 22. They are absolute monsters and make his life a living hell, despite all he tries to do for them.

I would never want that.

I would say it's more just not encouraged nowadays like it used to be, not explicitly discouraged.

What's your position and thoughts on the freedom of speech vs political correctness issue?

When will you take the helicopter ride?

Disregarding tradition because you think it automatically equals progress is equally unwise.

I think we're in a global economy these days and isolationism is doomed to failure.

Like, pick whatever state you live in. Should they stop trading with other states? Should they manufacture everything locally? Should every state in America build walls around itself?

It sounds pretty stupid when you put it like that doesn't it? Because people don't have "state pride" the way they have "national pride", so stripped of all the emotional baggage that goes with nationalism, you can see how silly it is.

Minus the false pretense that government represents the will of the people (a laughable one at that)... there are many falacies with that statement

The consumers always governs the quality, quantity, price and availability of goods. They will have the ability to govern what is put into food through directly controlling profits and losses.

If government steps in with subsidies, barriers to entry, etc, this makes firms less reliant on pleasing consumers and more reliant on pleasing politicians-- which is more or less the present state of things

freedom of speech has only ever referred to your ability to criticize the government without getting arrested. This I support.

In recent times, people are adopting the rhetoric "this is America I can say what I want" to justify just being jerks and expect they shouldn't have to suffer the social consequences of being jerks.

You should respect others, and they should respect you. If you don't give respect, don't expect to get any.

Yeah, men have probably been procreating and having a family to maximize their happiness for thousands of years for no reason.

but without a central entity to set standards, how do we even KNOW what's going into our food? will we trust the corporations to disclose that honestly? Should we form some kind of independent watchdog team to test what's in all the food? Who'd run it, who'd fund it? Well that's just government again under a different label.

men don't procreate to maximize their happiness, they do it because it's an instinctual drive. My understanding is that studies done on the subject point towards children reducing someone's happiness, and my own experience with what horrible little demons little children are confirms that assumption.

Gonna answer some too

Like OP, good chance I'm not having children. Probably won't get married either, although I'm sure I'll settle into some sort of long-term engagement. I don't hate children though.

No. Useless meddling for political points, no matter which way you paint it.

>What do you think is the benefit of importing cheap foreign labor that inflates the crime rate

I contest this. In many cases (e.g. refugees) there's a stronger moral argument to letting them in IMO. It depends on how you weight citizens inside and outside your country.

> devalues local labor which lowers wages throughout the job market

Makes no sense. Are you assuming these immigrants will neither be consumers or entepreneurs? Growth from immigration is economically not much different from growth by birth rate, and maybe even better as we don't fund the childcare and education costs in many cases.

>and fundamentally changes the culture and demographic to your detriment?

Not to my detriment IMO.

Political correctness is not a problem. People have the right to censor speech within non-governmental institutions. I don't rip into people who use terms I don't like for example, but I don't use them because I'm not an asshole. People get so worked up over gender terms for example. I don't care. I'll use them for the sake of social cohesion and it's such a small cost on my end.

OP Its wonderful watching Trumplets loosing their shit and perform amazing mental gymnastics isn't it?

Do white liberals really not care that white people are being actively replaced within our own homes?

What about the fact that a lot of these foreigners hate us?

Also, do you believe that white people should have a home just for us like other races do? What if it were just in Europe and multiculturalism was accepted and openly welcomed in all other white countries abroad?

This is a serious question. This is a topic I sincerely care about and am wondering if liberals care about it at all either and what your position on such a thing would be.

Do you honestly not see the Clintons as massively corrupt, or do you just accept it?

>What is your position on Gun Rights?
All the liberals I know here in Florida have concealed carry permits. We respect the 2nd Amendment as it was written, not as any activist judges change it to mean.

>Tradition for its own sake is stagnation.
Tradition is sometimes a way of giving dead people a say in what is necessary to change today.

I think there's no real reason to identify with a white person over anybody else. It's not like they're a part of you just because you share the same race.

Whatever feeling you have that makes you care super a lot about people of the same color and not so much about people of different color, I just don't have that feeling.

I'm me, and they're them, and that's it.

I also respect the 2nd Amendment as written. Anyone who wants a gun should have one, but only models that were available in the 1700s.

>On a scale of 1 to 10, how worried are you about the upcoming helicopter rides?
Why can't right-wing conservative extremists meet at the table without threats?

No question, just want to know if you'll go kill yourself

>Read The Law from Fredric Bastiat ; great philosopher on what government should and should not regulate
Bastiat was a trust-fund kid who never worked a day in his privileged life. America is not founded on the feels of the aristocracy.

>Do white liberals really not care that white people are being actively replaced within our own homes?

We see the world in quite different ways. I find it much more plausible that the people that think this are falling prey to common human biases than white people are actually under some significant threat.

>What about the fact that a lot of these foreigners hate us?

I simply can't accept this. I worked in a factory last year full to the brim of immigrants from around the world, usually of low socio-economic status. There was a bit of racial tension but all in all there was a strong sense of mutual understanding and appreciation. Isolated terror incidents do exactly what they're supposed to - they fool the rest of the population that that's a statistically likely way to die and that they should be more afraid of a particular race or nationality than cancer or texting while driving for example.

>Also, do you believe that white people should have a home just for us like other races do? What if it were just in Europe and multiculturalism was accepted and openly welcomed in all other white countries abroad?

That's a very extreme thing to suggest to non-white people in Europe. Along those lines, indigenous peoples should suggest that all settlers and descendents thereof should be removed.

It makes no sense because you can always pick a different time period to revert back to and say "this was the last time that this land was owned justly".

Yes, but they're not actively malicious - they believed they were doing the right thing.

There's no consensus on what goverment should and should not regulate, even among political scientists, economists, or philosophers - that's precisely what's at stake here. If you find that particular dude great, that's great, but he's not the final word.

>do you support the attack on Syria?
It increases instability in Middle East and it creates a strong recruitment incentive for radicalized Islamic groups, so in the long term, it causes far more damage than the short-lived feels.

I too support the second amendment as written. It doesn't mention models, only "arms". That includes artillery, by the way.

Yeah telling someone to kill them selves is utterly cuckish.

why do you like killing babies? why do you like filling our countries with subhumans? why are most of you such degenerate trash?

Do you think it's time for the Clintons to withdraw from political life for good, and let younger Democrats woth perhaps fresher ideas amd perspectives take the lead?

So would you be actively opposed to white people having their own home though (like say, China or Japan)? Say It wasn't even Europe as a whole, but rather just North-western Europe? There's an entire world out there these other people can go, live, and enjoy themselves. The only exception to that would be North-western Europe.

Would you be opposed to such a thing? If so, why?

The thinking Left's position on immigration is for proper vetting and under the condition of an economy that can support them.

In case of emergencies, load should be spread among participant countries as not not "overload" any 1 country.

And if these warzones can be stablised, there would be little need for ANY emergency legitimate refugee flow.

I don't think they should withdraw from politics completely, but they don't need to be the face of the Democratic Party either.

the Democrats aren't going to change what they are based on whatever politician is at the helm.

>civic nationalist

This guy totally gets it.

Too many dumbasses indeed think "freedom of speech" equals "freedom to be an asshole without consequences".

You're confusing trade with open borders. I'm not advocating for an end to trade or even immigration, but I haven't seen an explicit argument from the left as to why we should stop vetting and being selective about who gets to move here permanently, and why people who break these rules shouldn't be sent back immediately other than emotional arguments like "RACIS" or "THEY JUST WANT A BETTER LIFE"

Do liberals think the last century of strict immigration control and massive trade success just didn't happen? Why do liberals think immigration is an effective way to fight world poverty? Can you give me an argument in favor unregulated open borders that isn't an appeal to emotion?

Well if we're talking about a region that makes it illegal for non-white races to enter the country, then I would oppose that. It's restricting freedoms needlessly. If you want to oppose criminals from entering, or people who don't speak the language from entering, that's understandable, but to deny entry solely on race is too far in my opinion.

How would you even measure how white someone is anyway?

You didn't address the people that are already there. Forcibly removing them is out of the question.

A North-Western state, if it were inhabited solely by white people, could hypothetically keep all non-whites out. Me and almost everyone else on the planet would condemn it as morally abhorent, plenty of states would introduce economic sanctions and tariffs, and in general the whole idea would collapse. Not to mention all the logistical details of preventing people from artificially inseminating with black children, or what to do with families that want to immigrate. Such a massive waste of public resources on an initiative that's not possible, cruel, and based on very faulty reasoning e.g. fundamental attribution error.

It's a difference in who you consider "us". I consider that the whole human population and I'm out for their wellbeing. Completely open borders would be a huge shock and ruin a country, but we're nowhere near that. We can get to that point without that kind of damage, but only step by step as we enforce better labour standards around the globe.

>Do white liberals really not care that white people are being actively replaced within our own homes?
By homes to you mean home country or your actual house? Do you mean black people are replacing you as a husband? Sorry, but I don't have an answer you're going to like for that.

>What about the fact that a lot of these foreigners hate us?
Why would they hate us? Did we bomb them? Prop up their dictators? Loot their natural resources? I need more info.

>What if it were just in Europe and multiculturalism
The US and Europe have been "multicultural" for centuries. Our founding fathers were nearly all foreigners, and it was the culture they brought with them that is still our culture today. Minus the slaves, of course.

Yes, we hated the Irish for a few decades but we made them work their asses off, now they are one of us.
Yes, we hated the Chinese for a few decades but we made them work their asses off, now they are one of us.
Yes, we hated the Catholics and Jews for a few decades but we made them work their asses off, now they are one of us.
Yes, we hate the Muslims now but we make them work their asses off, soon they will be one of us.

The US-Mexico border is 2000 miles long. You can't stop people from coming in. You just can't. It's a false hope.

Mexicans are here, and more will be coming. More will always be coming. The question isn't how to stop it, it's how to deal with it.

>Anyone who wants a gun should have one, but only models that were available in the 1700s.
Irrelevant, because the amendment says nothing about the kinds of arms. Besides, I was thinking more along the lines of "well-regulated militia".

>people are adopting the rhetoric "this is America I can say what I want" to justify just being jerks and expect they shouldn't have to suffer the social consequences of being jerks.

Also fake news and disinformation. Deception, dishonesty and lies deserve no respect in the marketplace of ideas.

I assume you're a "Modern American" liberal as opposed to a Classical Liberal. I am the latter. I'd just like to know whether you "Modern American" liberals know about Classical Liberalism (your ideology's roots) and how you're different. Could you give me a quick rundown on what you believe the difference between the two is?

>I thought America had progressed beyond that kind of fear mongering

Hahaha don't pull that trick you faggot. Where were you when the msm ran out articles by the truckloads calling Trump every name under the sun, true or not, in an effort to paint him as the next Hitler? THAT'S fear-mongering. And it didn't stop in November - it kept going and going and finally only stopped a few weeks ago.

They may be progressives but they aren't going to progress past tried-and-true smearing campaigns (which usually consists of 'das raciss').

Not a clue, and I don't think it would change my opinions on any issues if I knew

okay, good to know, thanks for answering op

>Do liberals think the last century of strict immigration control and massive trade success just didn't happen?
We need immigrants to do the agriculture work that Americans are apparently unaccustomed to. What we don't need to 20,000 H1B visas a year taking American jobs that should be going to American college graduates.

>Why do liberals think immigration is an effective way to fight world poverty?
Is that what liberals think? I thought we were supposed to develop micro-economies where the poor live so they can sustain themselves. You know, help them dig wells, plant crops, etc. Americorps, Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

>Can you give me an argument in favor unregulated open borders that isn't an appeal to emotion?
This is a ridiculous red herring. Can you provide any evidence that any liberal has ever proposed legislation for "unregulated open borders"?

This should be a fun thread to read.

>Ctrl+F vote, no results
Who did you vote for in 2016 and why

Clinton because I support the Democrats' positions on various social and economic issues

>Where were you when the msm ran out articles by the truckloads calling Trump every name under the sun, true or not,
It's apparently OK when Sup Forums does it, but not this imaginary "msm".

The "msm" is the collective noun for any news outlets outside the right-wing echo chamber? It used to be that mainstream was the polite way to say "fringe". Now it's a pejorative for actual journalism, which is the saddest commentary on our information systems.

My bet is Sanders. The one true king. lol

Clintons tried WAY too hard. The people were behind Bernie.

Fuck there neocons.

*the

I liked Bernie too, but after he lost the Primary I wasn't going to do a spite-vote for Trump. I known some people who did though.

I'm familiar with classical liberalism. The reason I think it's outdated is because its fundamental premises are rooted in a time before any kind of modern social science, when we had an even more limited view of how people make choices, find work, and build relationships in a society. Technology and production relations were very different back then. New understandings in biology, neuroscience, and game theory to name just a few change our understanding of human nature, collaberation, and competition.

Devotion to classical liberal principles in general leads to a failure to recognize hierarchies that grow and self-select among "free associations" between people - ones whose social cost is impossible or very difficult for consumers to calculate, and therefore demand is skewed heavily. This leads to both economic inefficiency and an abnormally large gap between producer surplus and consumer surplus.

They produce what gets them views - that's a consequence of everything being dependent on profit. There's a huge market for soft outrage liberalism with easy categorizing. Despite that, I still think Trump is a shithead who can't get achieve any of his wrongheaded and naive goals.

>racial pride is a form of tribalism. Even if every other race were killed off and all of humanity were whites, we'd just find other ways to divide ourselves and say "THOSE PEOPLE are causing all the problems"
The same thing happened with the right-wing conservative muslims. When they were isolated for centuries, they still managed to find thousands of ways to be offended by each other and kill each other.

Why is enthic and racial diversity in a population necessarily a "strength?"

If you believe it is not always a strength, how can people differentiate?

My friend did the same as you, but he also blames the democrats for Trump winning because a lot of them didn't vote after Bernie lost instead of voting Hillary because of how unlikable she was.

it's not a strength, it's an inevitability. Ever since trains and cars and airplanes, and especially now with phones and internet and webcams, cultures are intermingling.

Struggling against the inevitable is folly, and I don't really see any problem with the intermingling. We're all people.

>it's an inevitability.
So is death. Are you going to end your life too because its inevitable?

This answers it pretty well. But if you want to verge into culture too here's an answer:

The artistic side of each culture (rituals, music, fashion, etc) exists for itself. If diversity isn't a strength, neither is a monoculture.

When it comes to the side of culture that has a utility (like a set of moral ideas), diversity is strong because it's like a search algorithm. Cultures grow and branch out, and when people don't like the efficacy of the utilities their culture provides them, they have opportunities to abandon it and consolidate. We don't know enough about this process to justify meddling in it with state intervention.

It's not an inevibility we care to avoid.

I'm not going to hasten death but I'm not going to fear it when it happens.

Unless it's death by spiders or something.

Is that why liberals surrender to Islam? I'm serious, not being argumentative.

I'm not liberal but I honestly think Muslims will conquer the world some day. Their ideology is too self-sustaining. They want it more than we do. I know it is inevitable, but I'd rather fight them to the bitter end than give them the keys to the house. It seems like liberals (who claim to despise Christian backwardness, patriarchy, and sexual repression) have completely surrendered to Islam.

Is it just cause they're mostly brown and poor, or is it this "inevitability" thing?

>It's not an inevibility we care to avoid.
Implying that even makes sense.

To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.