The US elections in November, 2010.

[Coito ergo sum]

Define 'liberals'.

Those folks that espouse a philosophy that recognizes ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages others to be enlightened by worthwhile contributions to society by those of diverse ethnic backgrounds. They take this laudable principle and bastardize it by supporting the suppression of unpopular and what they would consider "biased" and "hateful" speech on the part of Wilders. It is the muliticulturalist liberal who, although most likely for reasons he or she thinks are benevolent and good, is in favor of state "protection" of "disfavored groups" (e.g. Muslims) as against "hate speech" from favored or privileged folks, like Wilders.

I read an article not too long ago which described the argument that Wilders' free speech is being squelched as "absurd" because the purpose of free speech, in this liberal multiculturalist's mind (i'd have to search for the article again) is to help groups that traditionally disfavored or talked over/down to by either the government or favored groups, and that since Wilders represents the establishment he can't possibly assert that his free speech rights are being invaded. This school of thought basically de-individualizes the idea of rights. These folks would generally describe themselves as "liberal" and would be described as liberal by most folks because they also support other liberal/left/progressive ideas.

[Robert_S]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/

Edit:

On second thought, I think I'll post their About.

Butterflies and Wheels was established in 2002 to oppose a number of related phenomena. These include:

1. Pseudoscience that is ideologically and politically motivated.
2. Epistemic relativism in the humanities (for example, the idea that statements are only true or false relative to particular cultures, discourses or language-games).
3. Those disciplines or schools of thought whose truth claims are prompted by the political, ideological and moral commitments of their adherents, and the general tendency to judge the veracity of claims about the world in terms of such commitments.

There were two motivations for setting up the web site. The first is the common one having to do with the thought that truth is important, and that to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour.

The second has to do with the tendency of the political Left (which the editor of this site considers herself to be part of) to subjugate the rational assessment of truth-claims to the demands of a variety of pre-existing political and moral frameworks. We believe this tendency to be a mistake on practical as well as epistemological and ethical grounds. Alan Sokal expressed this concern well, when talking about his motivation for the Sokal Hoax: ‘My goal isn’t to defend science from the barbarian hordes of lit crit (we’ll survive just fine, thank you), but to defend the Left from a trendy segment of itself. Like innumerable others from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, I call for the Left to reclaim its Enlightenment roots.’ (Reply to Social Text Editorial)

[Trolldor]

Define 'liberals'.

Those folks that espouse a philosophy that recognizes ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages others to be enlightened by worthwhile contributions to society by those of diverse ethnic backgrounds. They take this laudable principle and bastardize it by supporting the suppression of unpopular and what they would consider "biased" and "hateful" speech on the part of Wilders. It is the muliticulturalist liberal who, although most likely for reasons he or she thinks are benevolent and good, is in favor of state "protection" of "disfavored groups" (e.g. Muslims) as against "hate speech" from favored or privileged folks, like Wilders.

I read an article not too long ago which described the argument that Wilders' free speech is being squelched as "absurd" because the purpose of free speech, in this liberal multiculturalist's mind (i'd have to search for the article again) is to help groups that traditionally disfavored or talked over/down to by either the government or favored groups, and that since Wilders represents the establishment he can't possibly assert that his free speech rights are being invaded. This school of thought basically de-individualizes the idea of rights. These folks would generally describe themselves as "liberal" and would be described as liberal by most folks because they also support other liberal/left/progressive ideas.

That's not a liberal at all.
A liberal is one who advocates individual freedoms.

[eXcommunicate]

That's not a liberal at all.
A liberal is one who advocates individual freedoms.

Right, which goes back to my earlier post.

[Trolldor]

Coito likes to call them liberals despite clearly being authoritarian all on the basis that they call thesmelves liberals?

Well, I'm the goddamn King of the World. I claimed it therefore I am it.

[Tero]

This election reminds me. Voters are stupid and have irrational expectations. There should be a test.

They want health care, the do not want government controlling it. They want it cheap. They want good highways, good police forces, etc., good schools. They do not want to pay taxes.

What the hell do they want that they would actually pay for?

[Warren Dew]

They want health care, the do not want government controlling it. They want it cheap. They want good highways, good police forces, etc., good schools. They do not want to pay taxes.

What the hell do they want that they would actually pay for?

Who is "they"?

Here in Massachusetts, we just rejected a proposal to cut the sales tax in half as too radical. We did approve a proposal to roll back a higher tax rate on alcohol, but only because the money was earmarked to a special interest program that was questionably worth funding. a few years ago, we rolled back an income tax increase and the government balanced the budget in ways no one minded. We also had a health care plan that most people were happy with, before Obamacare ruined it.

I grant that California voters sometimes seem to want what you describe. In some areas, though, voters are pretty responsible.

[Tero]

Them voters, the ones that here bothered to vote. We voted down "puppy mills".

[sandinista]

Coito likes to call them liberals despite clearly being authoritarian all on the basis that they call thesmelves liberals?

Well, I'm the goddamn King of the World. I claimed it therefore I am it.

liberals are worse than conservatives...basically conservatives without the balls to admit it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your views? Irrelevant. It's the motivations, and you are fairly reactionary.

That, my friend, is a load of crap.

One, a person's views is directly relevant to their position on the political spectrum. Political views are what is measured by the political spectrum.

Two, your opinion of me as "reactionary," however, is completely irrelevant. It's just your way of impressing upon me your preconceived notions.

[Coito ergo sum]

Define 'liberals'.

Those folks that espouse a philosophy that recognizes ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages others to be enlightened by worthwhile contributions to society by those of diverse ethnic backgrounds. They take this laudable principle and bastardize it by supporting the suppression of unpopular and what they would consider "biased" and "hateful" speech on the part of Wilders. It is the muliticulturalist liberal who, although most likely for reasons he or she thinks are benevolent and good, is in favor of state "protection" of "disfavored groups" (e.g. Muslims) as against "hate speech" from favored or privileged folks, like Wilders.

I read an article not too long ago which described the argument that Wilders' free speech is being squelched as "absurd" because the purpose of free speech, in this liberal multiculturalist's mind (i'd have to search for the article again) is to help groups that traditionally disfavored or talked over/down to by either the government or favored groups, and that since Wilders represents the establishment he can't possibly assert that his free speech rights are being invaded. This school of thought basically de-individualizes the idea of rights. These folks would generally describe themselves as "liberal" and would be described as liberal by most folks because they also support other liberal/left/progressive ideas.

That's not a liberal at all.
A liberal is one who advocates individual freedoms.

That is not the way the word "liberal" is used today.

I believe and advocate individual freedoms far more than most folks calling themselves liberal, and look - you won't allow me the privilege of referring to me as liberal.

[lsdetroit]

i voted for all the candidates that let felons go early.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's not a liberal at all.
A liberal is one who advocates individual freedoms.

Right, which goes back to my earlier post.

Well, the liberal multiculturalists refer to themselves as liberal and referred to in the media as liberal, and libertarians, who are quite liberal when it comes to "individual freedoms" (almost absolutist in terms of individual freedoms) are generally referred to as conservative.

It is not common modern usage to refer to a liberal as someone who believes in individual freedoms because liberal adopt non-freedom-supporting positions in many cases, espectially when it comes to economic freedoms, the liberty of contract, freedom of assembly (many liberals advocate not allowing hate-groups to freely assemble, like the KKK or anti-choice pro life groups), many liberals advocate against some freedom of speech (e.g. making Mein Kampf illegal and advocating for fines against persons who "preach hate" or "insult minority groups or insult/offend racial groups or religions).

[eXcommunicate]

I for one welcome our lesbian vampire overlords:



Finally someone in the media besides Jon Stewart gets it.

Well, the liberal multiculturalists refer to themselves as liberal and referred to in the media as liberal, and libertarians, who are quite liberal when it comes to "individual freedoms" (almost absolutist in terms of individual freedoms) are generally referred to as conservative.

I am not European, but it is my understanding that the left in Europe does not call themselves "liberal." This goes back to my original point regarding terms. It is also my understanding that the term "liberal" changed meaning in the early 20th century in the U.S. not only because of what the left was calling themselves, but also because the right liked to call them that. If anything, the Right is the one that continually perpetuates the term to mean left-authoritarianism.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito likes to call them liberals despite clearly being authoritarian all on the basis that they call thesmelves liberals?

It's not about what I like. That's what they are called in common usage - on the news, in media publication, by pundits, on wikipedia (and the citations therein) - everywhere. They aren't called conservative. And, many liberals ARE autoritarian, as the box-chart above demonstrates. We see that in the pro-government regulation views of many liberals - even here. Look at the "ban Ronald McDonald" thread - those calling themselves liberals advocate AGAINST individual freedom in that case.

Well, I'm the goddamn King of the World. I claimed it therefore I am it.

That's what you're doing. You are claiming some definition of "liberal" that is not in accord with modern usage.

Example:

LIBERALS - believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/c ... l-beliefs/

When liberals advocate for "equality" they often sacrifice some individual liberty (freedom) to achieve that equality. And, they will often advocate a "civil right" to be free from insulting and offensive speech of others (at least in terms of racial or ethnic issues). That limits freedom of speech, so they are quite often anti-freedom in that sense.