Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Would you consider the ownership of firearms a social liberalism standpoint?

Good point...
And I guess it's also authoritarian to make discrimination illegal.  It's forcing people to ignore something that bothers them.
But I think the most authoritarian thing liberals support is social welfare.  Wealth redistribution.

Just because I believe social welfare and anti-discrimination laws are good and just (respectively), doesn't mean they aren't authoritarian.  And I'm not crazy about the typical liberal stance on guns.

I guess it's easy to forget when the other side is loudly championing shit like the "moral majority" and commonly electing representatives out of homophobia, racism, and promises to make America a good Christian nation again.  I don't mean to use those terms lightly...  The homophobic moral majority is largely to blame for 8 years of Bush the younger, and all that came of that.  The "culture war" doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Loud Whispers]

I think the most authoritarian thing liberals support is the curtailment of free speech and an online registry of individuals

[nenjin]

I think the most authoritarian thing liberals support is the curtailment of free speech and an online registry of individuals

Your b8 ain't so g8 m8.

[Strife26]

Well, he's definitely not wrong. Don't forget the killing of American citizens without trial, general trampling of the Fourth Ammendment, and super enhanced executive power.

I mean, all of that is basically universal for our ruling parties at the moment, except the conservatives mostly replace the free speech limitations with belief discrimination of other types.

Maybe we can watch the Republicans realign so all that shit can be limited to one party.

[SirQuiamus]

I think the most authoritarian thing liberals support is the curtailment of free speech and an online registry of individuals

r/ShitLiberalsSay

EDIT:

Well, he's definitely not wrong. Don't forget the killing of American citizens without trial, general trampling of the Fourth Ammendment, and super enhanced executive power.

I mean, all of that is basically universal for our ruling parties at the moment, except the conservatives mostly replace the free speech limitations with belief discrimination of other types.

Maybe we can watch the Republicans realign so all that shit can be limited to one party.

...and by the way, multinational corporations are the most authoritarian entities in the history of everything, and being employed by one is a thousand times worse than working for Hitler. And liberals absolutely love multinational corporations when they progressify and diversity-wash their public images.

[nenjin]

Maybe we can watch the Republicans realign so all that shit can be limited to one party.

Hoping that a party will one day embody all the evil so your party has none is the height of wishful thinking.

[Sheb]

I think the most authoritarian thing liberals support is the curtailment of free speech and an online registry of individuals

r/ShitLiberalsSay

EDIT:

Well, he's definitely not wrong. Don't forget the killing of American citizens without trial, general trampling of the Fourth Ammendment, and super enhanced executive power.

I mean, all of that is basically universal for our ruling parties at the moment, except the conservatives mostly replace the free speech limitations with belief discrimination of other types.

Maybe we can watch the Republicans realign so all that shit can be limited to one party.

...and by the way, multinational corporations are the most authoritarian entities in the history of everything, and being employed by one is a thousand times worse than working for Hitler. And liberals absolutely love multinational corporations when they progressify and diversity-wash their public images.

Yeah, right.

[Strife26]

Maybe we can watch the Republicans realign so all that shit can be limited to one party.

Hoping that a party will one day embody all the evil so your party has none is the height of wishful thinking.

Well, I'd be perfectly happy if it all ended up in the Republican Party to so I could be solid something. But if a party is going to realign in the near future, it's definitely going to be the Republicans, not the Dems.

[mainiac]

Well, he's definitely not wrong. Don't forget the killing of American citizens without trial, general trampling of the Fourth Ammendment, and super enhanced executive power.

Seems a bit dodgy saying liberals favor any of those three.  The "super enhanced executive" power thing has more of a case but it's more an example of the legislative branch getting weaker then the executive getting strong.  If congress would just start passing laws again like it's supposed to, all those executive powers would vanish.

[nenjin]

Well, they wouldn't really. But presidents would maybe feel less inclined to exercise them if the legislature did anything besides fling poo at each other and filibuster.

[Strife26]

  http://loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-government-will-explain.html 

  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)&ved=0ahUKEwj47oXn88_MAhUH5oMKHVN6BqsQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEQhWRIMM6J1tiIdUx1-uOn-W9pNA&sig2=49sUCyTCD7-wcaxubq-ZHA

     http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/04/24/and-the-cancer-spreads-doj-orders-unm-to-violate-first-amendment/

[Reelya]

...and by the way, multinational corporations are the most authoritarian entities in the history of everything, and being employed by one is a thousand times worse than working for Hitler. And liberals absolutely love multinational corporations when they progressify and diversity-wash their public images.

Nah, not really buying this.

First up, conservatives absolutely love corporations. They're a major part of the power structure. And you do see conservatives bending over backwards to justify the actions of corporate leaders as good and proper, and downplaying their crimes when they occur. Which is totally in line with what Bob Altermeyer writes about how authoritarians react to challenges to the status quo.

Sources of authority include religious, economic, military, law enforcement and government. Notably, it's only really the elected part of this that I see conservatives having any problem with over-reach. The non-elected parts of this power structure seem fine and dandy to most conservatives.

Sure, the conservatives have some names they pull out to try and prove they're not 100% sucking the dicks of rich people, but that list of names is very small, and the logic is retarded: rather than the stratified system of wealth and ownership being a problem, it's that one guy George Soros who's responsible for 90% of the problems with America. So a structural / class issue is reduced to "if we could only get rid of that one (Jewish) rotten apple", which prevents people logically thinking through the issue at all. It's a red herring basically.

Meanwhile we have the "liberal" version of authoritarianism, which looks to mainly be concerned with limiting how much power one person can wield over another.

EDIT: But none of that is to say that a new form of Authoritarianism could grow up around what were previously "liberal" ideas. Look at conservative support for some proposals that were previously seen as extreme liberal positions, but have been around so many generations they've become the status quo. Additionally, look at some intolerant campus types for a microcosm of that occurring. Bob Altermeyer writes about how authoritarians like to blend in, to be conventional, to go with the flow. With Political Correctness becoming the dominant ideology on college campuses, many of these same types of personalities could attach themselves to this rather than something else. Because to attach yourself to something unpopular is to stand out, to not be part of the herd, which is against how this personality type thinks. So it's theoretically possible for a progressive movement to be hijacked by the influx of a lot of people who in previous generations would have become conservatives. Getting too popular and mainstream for you own good, basically.

[Reelya]

My response was aimed at the final sentence, which was clearly his own view and not derived from the "paper".

But remember, there's no single "paper" that is being cited. That doesn't exist. What there is, is a research tool that was developed over several decades, and a mountain of field work and studies related to it, across a number of countries. That's qualitatively different to e.g. citing a single paper that someone wrote.

[nenjin]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/technology/facebook-news-senate/index.html

Since when has any private company been required to equally disseminate political news? Is Fox News going to get hauled into Congress to explain why they don't report on LGBT issues enough? I know there are rules during presidential elections that television stations have to equally air ads for both sides but, Facebook ain't TV. Nor are we even officially in the elections.

Congress can't get a fucking thing done but at least it can still waste our tax dollars on trivial shit like this.

[Reelya]

This still feels like justification of tribalism in an "us-versus-them" mentality against conservatives. Conservatives are authoritarian, and they might corrupt us good Liberals to be as such too.


Let me be blunt- trying to tie this "authoritarian-libertarian" spectrum to the current conservative-liberal spectrum is asinine.

Well, that's a mischaracterization of what I wrote. What I actually said was that people with an authoritarian mentality will overall be drawn to whichever ideology is seen as the "safe" status quo. Right now, that's more towards conservative politics, but that could shift later on. So, as a progressive movement (or idea) becomes more mainstream, you'd see more sheeple joining up and more reactionary attitudes to maintaining that which has become the new social norm.