/tolerantleft/ General

I used to be a leftist, but then Sup Forums pointed out all the ways the /left/ was actually just as racist and just as intolerant as the Nazis, So I figured I'd create a new movement that alligns with my ideas. The Tolerant Left.
Post in this thread if
>You're not racist
>You're not antisemitic
>You're not islamophobic
>You're Anti-war
>You don't believe in outlandish conspiracy theories
>You want to protect the envirornment and diminish the effects of Global warming
>You want equality for all humans
>You believe the government should regulate the free market
>you believe the government has an obligation to the Welfare of its citizens (Universal healthcare, unemployment, Science and education funding)

Does this sound like your kind of movement?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>abos
>human

Why are you calling your thread a general?
>>You don't believe in outlandish conspiracy theories
Your thread is garbage and you should feel bad.

because it's a general for the tolerant leftists of Sup Forums to discuss politics without being racists like Nazis or normal leftists are.

bump
I can dig it. I like bernie because I'm not delusional in thinking that this economy is some sort of "free" market system. He was going to get rid of the barriers for us. Trump is doing well though. Hell, maybe even better. #notracist #notislamophobic #pleasegivemea(you)

> not racist
> not anti-semitic
> equality
no.

Bump
Sounds like my kind of movement. We need to ditch the SJWfags, they're holding us back

Human society needs inequality

Universal equality should not be the goal of anybody that considers themselves humanist or tolerant.

What you should want is universal freedom

In a perfectly free society there will be a degree of inequality because humans are unequal creatures.

The only way to have equality for all humans is to restrict their freedoms by force

>the /left/ was actually just as racist and just as intolerant as the Nazis

wew lad

people like you are why Trump won the election

I mean, Hillary kissed a KKK guy and wanted to put christians in concentration camps. It was clear that Trump was the least Racist guy. He is the Least Anti-semitic guy in the world, according to himself. He wouldn't put up with leftwing racists like

Go to reddit, I hear they are tolerant. By the way you should totes donate money to Bernie, I just gave $40 match me:3

Witnessed.

How is introspecting a bad thing? The left can be racist and intolerant as fuck, just against a different group of people (whites, males, straights, christians).

New brand, same old faggotry. Nigger.

Not at all. It sounds like a pipedream that devolve into distopia in the blink of an eye.

Where did I mention race?

You profess to be different than the intolerant left, and then immediately call me a racist despite no evidence that I am
Humans are unequal at an individual level. I've met black people that were smarter than me. I've met women that were stronger than me.

Each of us has our own set of skills, ambitions and principles. What a modern liberalism should remember are the principles that liberalism originally stood for, namely freedom for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Forcing equality upon a group of people goes against this

I believe blind, 100% party loyalty is a detriment to society.
Nuanced opinions are key. Racism, sexism, the like are all abhorrent to me. But the economy in the present matters. The far left wants radical changes too quickly without any revolution. That's just not possible.

I would like to point out that when you try to treat individuals as equals, you end up exposing their inequality and the cycle repeats itself.
>individuality and equality are mutually exclusive states of being
To predicate your society on the idea of 'equal individuals' is a reciepe for disaster.

Do you think when people say equality they mean harrison bergeron level "Everyone needs red hair"? Obviously they mean political, legal, social equality. You're like those insufferable reddittards who here obviously simplistic slogans like "Save the planet" and have to interject "Actually, the planet doesn't need to be saved, because even if you nuke the entire surface, there will still be a rock floating around the sun, so the Planet is fine"

>forcing equality upon a group of people

Ok, time to off yourself

This.

You're too vague and emotional. That's why I don't trust you people.

If I am reading this correctly then I agree with you.

To simplify the vast sweeping differences between cultures and individuals by making a series of idealistic platitudes proclaiming us all to be equal insures that, at some point, a conflict will arise between the natural progression of reality, namely the manifestation of our inherent inequality, and the principles upon which the egalitarian society was founded

>Bernie

I'd happily support such a movement but fuck off

So, normal left but with new name?

Yup. You read it correctly.

The law can try it's hardest to treat us as equals, but that doesn't guarantee that we will believe we are being treated as equals. From one person's unique point of view as an individual, they may believe one particular law is oppressing them. From unique point of view as an individual I can disagree with them, while at the same time stating that a different law is oppressing me, which they may not agree with either. And a few million voices and you've got the division we see today.

You say obviously, but what I have continually seen from the left is the progression away from equality of oppurtunity towards equality of outcome

Now if you are rejecting the latter and embracing the former, than you and I are the same side, but as you have yourself claimed, there is a general trend in the left to force equality where it is not neccesary

This is why nobody likes you

>You believe the government should regulate the free market
fuck off commies

If you're any of the things you mentioned you don't belong on Sup Forums faggot

Exactly.

As I mentioned in The trend from the left has moved away from supporting equality of oppurtunity towards supporting equality of outcome

They seem as a group to be working backwards, taking a conclusion, namely that our society is institutionally oppressive, and finding the inequalities that are the result of a naturally free and open society to support them.

Muh free market. I'm not free until I'm allowed to sell heroin to preschoolers

It's called being a cuck ideolog, enjoy going extinct while feeling smart. Add this sentence to the end of you'rs;
> You're gonna get used and stomped on

Racism is not allowed outside of Sup Forums, friendo.

Obviously there should be a stance between those two extremes. When you and OP talk about regulating the economy, what degree of interference are you envisioning

first of all, I pointed towards the free market, not total anarchism. But you brought up the ancap strawman so why don't you educate yourself on it. Here's a video drawn so even someone like you with the mental ability of a 5 year old can understand:

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

In his defense he countered your strawman with a strawman.

Although, as a person with a more Austrian outlook on the economy i suspect you and I would find a lot of common ground

Government should restrict businesses from creating monopolies and have basic laws in place to prevent them from misleading and fucking over consumers. Banks are more complicated, but at the end of the day it's largely a matter of making sure they're transparent and capable of withstanding severe market fluctuations (re: have a sufficient amount of capital on-hand). Otherwise it can pretty much be le free market

Well, I'm not sure you can have equality of oppurtunity for the same reason I stated above. Some people will not believe they have the equality of oppurtunity and will use economics/race/sex to justify their belief. The whole idea of equality needs to go. It's the poison that is killing the west. It's a misunderstanding of reality born out of the enlightment era. Take the idea of equality to the next level and you get Marx. We need to accept that there can be no form of equality between individuals. To think there is to believe in the oxymoron, equal individuals.

>he countered your strawman
dunno if I agree with that, he said he believes in government regulation of the free market. Those two are not reconcilable and is a logical oxymoron. Then I called him a commie not to strawman his beliefs but as a derogatory slur.

>you can't have equality of opportunity

Unless you're actively discriminating against people, then you already have it. Every retard has the same 24 hours in a day, it's just a matter of how you spend it.

Well in that case the U.S. as is is your de jure dream.

The Sherman Anti-Trust act is in place which allows congress and the president to break up monopolies in the name of "keeping commerce regular" as per the constitution.

Legal precedent and better business laws hold corporations accountable for representing their products accurately

The FDIC insure banks are solvent and the FED dictates the amount of reserves a bank must hold (although in the case of the 2008 recession the banks were holding too much and the FED couldn't lower interest rates enough).

How much of this is put into practice is debatable but the laws are already there

kill yourselves

...

But not everyone will not share that point of view. Whether or not I'm descriminating doesn't stop someone from accusing me of descrinimation. That's one of biggest problems with the idea of equality. It implies equality of point of view. Thats the assumption you are operating off in you post, that we all share your point of view on the matter.

While I agree with you that one man's equality is another man's oppression, I disagree with your assessment about its practicality.

Just because one believes he is being treated unequally does not make it so.

You can have equality of opportunity, but instead of pushing for egalitarianism we should be promoting freedom.

I agree withon this one. Freedom and E of Opportunity are functionally the same provided one is not trying to correct inherent inequalities in the name of equality

The laws are definitely there, but since our government is comprised of faggots who'll suck off lobbyists for a quick buck, they are sparsely applied. I believe that it's not really the laws that need to change that much, it's the people who enforce them.

>Just because one believes he is being treated unequally does not make it so.
Who are you to tell someone what they believe is wrong? I'm not trying to sound confrontational either. It's a legitimate question to ask yourself. You don't get to tell other what they believe, just like you don't let others tell you what to believe. Do you see the problem here?

It doesn't matter if you say I'm discriminating against you, there's an objective truth that lies outside the boundaries of your person opinion. In this case we're assuming I'm not, so you're just wrong.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

>there's an objective truth
The truth is what you make it. You can't objectively prove ideas, only objects.

>You can't objectively prove ideas

I can objectively prove that you're retarded, and that's just an idea

>one man is superior to another physically, or mentally
we each get to choose what characteristics we believe are superior/inferior. These characterics are important to you, but they may not be to me. There is no objective superiority. The concept is subjective to the individual.

>cant refute my argument, resort to name calling.
wew lad

I was actually illustrating a point. You can objectively prove ideas, such as a person's retardation (in this case, yours). Math is just manmade ideas, and it's definitely fucking objective.

What the fuck are you on about

So prove that I do not believe I'm being descriminated by you. You can't. You can use your point of view to justify your denial of my opinion, but you can't prove I don't feel that way or that my opinion is invalid for feeling like that.

you really are a faggot aren't you? can't handle the heat, keep out of the oven, unless you're a Jew of course.


Do us all a favour, neck yourself leftist scum.

If you claim that something is happening to you, you have the burden of proof. You have to prove that you're being discriminated against.

I can use economic situation/gender/race a whole host of things to 'prove', aka justify my point of view. You can disagee, but you can't prove me wrong.

If I'm not mistaken, this man is quoting marx in which marx is rejecting liberalism in favor of communalism.

Unfortunately you lost me with all of the relativism. While we can't stop a person from believing something not grounded in reality, by and large the majority of people will see the true nature of a system provided said system is transparent and representative enough

The main reason we have a class of people holding these fantastical opinions about our society is the current preeminence of identity politics in universities and the media combined with a general lack of trust in the institutions of government

If we're assuming that this is a society where the government doesn't discriminate against people, then you would be really fucking hard-pressed to find evidence of discrimination.

Also did OP up and flee I was really hoping to hear his response to my last reply to him

>by and large the majority of people will see the true nature of a system provided said system is transparent and representative enough
Which leads to what Hamilton wrote about in the federalist papers, the tyrrany of the majority.

As I said before, they can't prove they are being discriminated against, rather they rely on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to support there points.

While this backwards logic is great for confirmation bias, it generally fails to persuade people provided the current platforms of discussion are intellectually honest about the points being made.

Generally speaking these platforms only serve to provide these people with a voice without making the effort to challenge their ridiculous claims of victimhood

I can spin the information available in my favor any time I want. Niggers do it all the time.
>so many blacks locked up = institutionalized descrimination
You don't have to agree with that point of view, in fact I don't, but it doesn't change their belief. They are hellbent on beating that idea into everyone. If they can convince the majority that their point of view is 'right', what happens to your belief in you being right when you're in the minority? It doesn't change does it?

Call me racist but for fucks sake the culture in the middle east that supports beating women, honor killing and isn't even advance enough to have toilet paper is far inferior to any western culture.

>You don't believe in outlandish conspiracy theories

t. Indoctrinated Cuck.

As a leftist you disgust me.

They're either right or wrong though. Every single retard can say 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it true. Just because you've convinced a lot of people that you're bullshit is true doesn't make it so.

On the contrary I think cultural relativism, much like egalitarianism, is a farce.

Islamophobia has to often been used to silence healthy criticism of the more barbaric culture present in Islam. So long as the points being made are targeted at the ideas and not the people as a body, I see nothing wrong with speaking out against Islam.

Indeed some of my favorite critics of Islam are themselves Arabic or North African

Lets assume the majority believes genocide is wrong.
If you believe you it's so right that you genocide everyone who disagrees with, to the point that there is no one left to say 'that's wrong', was the majority right?

Well then you get into philosophical issues of objective morality and such. I don't know if there's an objective answer to genocide being right or wrong, so I can't answer that. With concrete things like math and discrimination, that issue doesn't really come up. Also inb4 get off my board you nihilist fuck

>You're not antisemitic
>You don't believe in outlandish conspiracy theories

nice try, shlomo shekelsteinberg.

Hamilton refers to the abuse of majority rule to codify laws that privilege the majority to the detriment of the minority. This was primarily aimed towards state populations as opposed to race or religion.

The reality of the situation is that, ultimately, the will of the majority will be represented more than the will of the minority. This is what Montesquieu in his spirit of the laws and is indeed what we see in every democratic society.

One should be wary of falling into the trap of calling an adequately representative democracy a tyranny of the majority.

Provided there are not codified obstacles presented to people because of ascribed characteristics, any argument claiming oppression is unconvincing to an intellectually competent populous.

I have no problem with nihilism. It's a neccessary evil. First we have to expeience nihilism to see what value our 'values' really had.
The point I'm trying to make is that the majority decides whats correct/incorrect, right/wrong. It's not about what can be proved. It's about who has the louder voice. The idea that ideas are concrete I have a problem with. Math has a written language that isn't up for debate. The language that describes discrinimation is up for debate. There is no object way to prove what exactly constitutes discrimination. It is up to interpretation.

Dude you sound like a fag pls leave

>its not about what can be proved. its about who has the louder voice

I just fundamentally disagree with this. But you're entitled to your opinion and I see where you're coming from.

>One should be wary of falling into the trap of calling an adequately representative democracy a tyranny of the majority.
But we can always argue about whether or not it's represetation is adequite. Think about this last election. Californians are saying that the electoral college causes people from Utah to have more voting power than Californians due to changing population and the fact the number of electoral votes hasn't changes accordingly, and they would be correct in that assertion. I'm glad we haven't changed because I don't want commiefornia deciding the election, but that doesn't change the fact that citizens of California have less voting power than the citizens of Utah.

Nice try schlomo

>Obviously they mean political, legal, social equality.
>social equality
Total fantasy and leftist nonsense that would require brainwashing every citizen. No people will never be equal socially nor should they.

I agree with you. The problem with democracy is that the more people it has to represent the less accurate that representation becomes.

As our country has been growing in population, so too has our trend of taking power away from the states and giving it to the federal government. In this manner you have laws being made to fit every state when in reality they are fit for none.

If we look through history or even the modern era, large stable multicultural states only exist as incredibly decentralized pseudo-confederations of local goverments or near-totalitarian centralized entities. Right now the U.S. is caught in the middle.

I agree that they won't socially , don't have an opinion on whether or not they should. Politically and legally, however, should be a given

>>You're not islamophobic
KYS you stupid cuck.Your GF is too busy choking on mohammad's cock to care about you anyway.

It depends on what you mean by politically.

For all intents and purposes, legally and politically mean the same thing. The only thing we as a society can insure is that there are no codified penalties to people who aren't part of the majority. Everything else is a result of natural inequality arising from inherent differences among individuals and cultures

>The government should regulate the free market
RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE

100% agree. I guess we as a people need to figure out where to go from here. But when we do, we run into the problem of differing points of view again. We can't please eveyone, only the majority. We are in a catch22 imho.

Everyone is fairly represented. That doesn't mean that Congress has to have a certain number of niggers, fags, kikes, etc, just that whoever the people do elect represents all of their constituents, and not just some of them

kek what the fuck dude you're absolutely retarded. First, kill yourself, and then never post here again.

literally every one of your planks are wrong.

OP abandoned thread after intelligent debate sprung up

Here you go user

i'm going to piggy back this movement and create the "alt left". we think Trump is controlled by the ZOG and demand immediate revolt en massse

I think it's okay to be mostly anti-war desu

czech'd and OP's probably still lurking.
He still doesn't realise he never should have come here.

No because all the things you listed are part of being human and not some self righteous douche

Fucking sage

Centre-Right to Centrist Classical/Social Liberal here. Can I join?

Also, Islamophobia is not a real word.

See

Read the global rules.

IM confused.
What happened to this guy

I think he got electrocuted. He's playing in what looks like a ground transformer.