This is the American politics thread, so I'm using the American definitions (as good as i can 
) for simplicity. And to make everything even more complicated outside of it.
What you used isn't American definition of liberal.
No.
lol
Curious tho, how am I "authoritarian?"
Your dislike of pluralism, what your arguments and way of speaking about other members of this forums reveals about you, how you deride everyone who do not agree with you 100% or in any way question or simply to not agree with your narrative as the Enemy - a common authoritarian technique to bully people into both getting in line. Of course, pointing to any particular post in which you have been downright authoritarian isn't possible, because in your dishonesty you hide what I just know you actually think. Which is why, and I repeat, you should stop pretending so you can genuinely participate in the conversation and say what you mean.
If it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck, its a duck. I've been on this forum for a long time and for years I was involved in the political discussion threads, the gender threads in particular. I have a decent idea of how things tick here. The same thing happens over and over, people come on the threads, lead with "I don't agree with ____, but", and then 6 months later they're banned for going on a wild rant or linking to stormfront or something. This isn't how I talk to people in real life, because everyone I know in real life is either disengaged from politics or willing to tell me where they stand. I know people in real life that are like "I'm with the democrats on social issues but the republicans on economic issues," and I'm fine with that. I mean you've been around at least as long as I have, if you've been watching me in the politics thread you know I'm passionate about wanting 3rd parties to be viable. I hate that environmentalists need to shackle themselves to the democrats (who in the time between Al Gore's failure and a couple years ago, were pretty center line on environmentalism) because the green party isn't viable. And I hate that libertarians, much as I disagree with them, need to shackle themselves to the religious right in order to achieve political influence. The reason I'm mad at moderates right now is because there's only one democratic party and I don't want it to be a moderate party. In our current awful reality there's only two parties in America, it makes no sense to have a far-right party and a moderate party. That doesn't end in centrism, that ends in conservatives getting their way. Its a bad political strategy plain and simple.
At risk of putting words in the mouth of everyone that's argued with me, this is how I would define the core disagreement I've been having with people. I believe that a pluralistic society requires accommodation. For example, back in Reconstruction the free market would not have been pluralistic. Because the slaves had nothing, we had to give them their mules and their 40 acres or they could not participate in society. Its a different definition of fairness; one is fair because the government treats everyone equally, the other is fair because the government *protects* everyone equally. In the present this is why I care so much about healthcare and welfare, because to me those are necessary for a pluralistic society. A dead person isn't going to be taking part in society, a homeless person isn't either. This to me is what Bernie said I had already been thinking.
This is the core of it. Parent tells their kids that gay people are going to hell. Person overhears this, gets in an argument with them. Forget whether that's pragmatic, just focus on these two viewpoints. That is pluralistic, because if those kids are gay, hearing that from their parents will prevent them from being their genuine selves in society. OR, that's not pluralistic, because parents have a right to raise their kids however they want, and trying to interfere disrupts the parent's ability to express their genuine self. That is the core of the disagreements I'm getting into in this thread. Their may be more than two viewpoints here, but I think most people in this thread have either not chimed in or slotted themselves cleanly enough into one or the other.
As a person who's spent my life on the knife's edge between disabled and not, and can easily see an alternate universe where I dropped out of school and ended up dead in a ditch somewhere, this is a self demonstrating point to me. Without the support of people around me and without access to medicine, I could not meaningfully take part in society. So when someone comes along and tells me that pluralism means taking a step back and letting everyone do their thing, hell yeah I'm going to get mad. That's not pluralism. Tolerance, pluralism, freedom, all come with an inherent disclaimer: everyone can do what they want as long as it doesn't effect other people's ability to do what they want. So fuck yeah neo-nazis aren't protected under the umbrella of tolerance. They need to have their right to assemble purely so that others can maintain that right; there is nothing about their philosophy unto itself that is worth protecting. Coexistance is a two way street and you can't shake a hand that isn't offered.
All parts of the American political spectrum believe in liberty, which is why liberal doesn't mean what you think it does. Yes, even those very few who are pro slavery or in favor of non-democratic systems believe in fairness and liberty, they just define those things differently. "Fairness means everyone is equal." "Fairness means everyone is treated equally by the system." In American politics, you're a democrat or a republican depending on which statement is true. Or you didn't pay attention in social studies if you think they both are. Being democrat or republican
doesn't mean that you aren't moderate, because in American politics coalitions are formed PRIOR to elections rather than after them. The parties are coalitions. Its not about two sides, its about two sets of many sides facing off with, with the people furthest from each coalition's center disengaging from the process. My disagreement with moderates is part of the larger debate between Hillary democrats and Bernie democrats, who are both very similar politically. Its a power struggle within the coalition for who takes the wheel, with the loser likely to distance themselves from the party and face lower levels of voting and political participation. The voters with true power in the US system are those that are so pragmatic or jaded that they hold both statements either irrelevant or false. Those are the swing voters. They are the only ones who can go from one coalition to the other.
Left-center-right means specific things in America that it doesn't necessarily in other countries.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4469291 times)