Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 11, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 76

How far will liberalism go?

:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
If given its way, how far do you think extreme liberalism could reach? Pros? Cons?

Do you consider any mainstream viewpoints of today to be extremely liberal?

Should liberal ideas require justification? Or is their liberal nature justification enough?

If liberalism could be "measured", where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 being extremely conservative and 10 being extremely liberal?



Now, put into less polite terms... Should everyone be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want just because they can? :I

Note: Please don't make attacks against me based on assumptions, or at all if possible. I can assure you, you know nothing about me, and I don't believe I've set up this thread in a way that stimulates debate as much as it asks for opinion. Thank you :heart:

I also disabled icons because they break my heart :(
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconroyalmockery:
RoyalMockery Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
1) Liberalism isn't doing whatever someone wants (I think that's been well-repeated throughout)
2) Liberals are conservative on some issues while Conservatives are liberal on some issues (i.e. gun control. Conservatives tend to be more pro-gun while liberals tend to support stronger gun control.)
3) I don't know how it is in Mexico, but in America, liberalism is not the problem. Conservatives (who tend to be Republican, unfortunately) are the ones we need to worry about. Why? Because extreme liberals are not the ones yelling out all sorts of ridiculous notions about rape and pregnancy and trying to enforce equally ridiculous laws. For example: In New Mexico, a Republican lawmaker proposed a bill that would make it illegal for rape victims to get abortions for "tampering with evidence" which carries a felony sentence of up to 3 years in jail. It was extreme conservatives who made statements that follow MEDIEVAL mindsets that "real rapes don't result in pregnancies".

The question isn't how far will we let liberalism go. Its how far will we let the loud-mouthed extremist conservatives go because their opinions, their ideas on how our laws should be, are downright terrifying.
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
babies first political thought;

"Should everyone be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want just because they can? :I"
Thats anarchy, not liberalism. Just because its left wing does not make it fucking marxism or anarchy.
Reply
:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Huh!
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
Extremes of anything isn't good. If something sounds way far out there, it's probably not a good idea.
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Well it depends on how far we should let extreme conservatism to go- so far you've decided that murdering kindergardeners with your guns is totally awesome. I think that's far enough.
Reply
:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Why would it depend on that? One extreme doesn't depend on the other.
Reply
:iconroyalmockery:
RoyalMockery Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Well said!!
Reply
:iconvi0letdreamer:
vi0letdreamer Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Student Photographer
I actually think most of today's mainstream viewpoints are more conservative than liberal.

That being said, I am a die-hard liberal.
Reply
:iconmare-of-night:
mare-of-night Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
I'm not sure why we're talking about measuring the liberal-ness of ideas? Liberal-ness (as you seem to be defining it) is just "how different is this from tradition?"* It's... pretty expected that deviation from tradition (liberal-ness) keeps increasing? The only reason it wouldn't, is if societies tended to change back to the way they traditionally were a lot, and they don't.

That's why some people were confused by what you meant, by the way - in a lot of circles, "liberalism" is what people in the 1700s and 1800s called embracing capitalism, which is now considered a conservative idea. To them, liberalism was liberal in comparison to feudalism.

Based on the pattern of history, I'm pretty sure that people who are liberal for their time, support things that end up actually catching on at some point in the future, and don't cause anything especially bad to happen are the ones who are likely to have their ideas remembered as good. Because those will be the ideas that are *normal* to the people reading the history books. This doesn't mean they're necessarily actually better, just that their ancestors will judge them as better. As I evaluate things, the policies that are actually better are the ones that have the best consequences, which doesn't have much to do with whether they are "liberal" or not.
Reply
:iconjuliabohemian:
Juliabohemian Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
I think any extreme is dangerous.
Reply
:iconcoolcat10189:
coolcat10189 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Explain "Liberalism" first. I can't get your definition just yet.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
they'll take it as far as they possibly can until it can't be sustained any longer then it'll crash and we'll revert to conservative principles for a while then people will get bored and demanding and the cycle will repeat all over again.
Reply
:iconcoolcat10189:
coolcat10189 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
We have conservative principals already...too conservative if you ask me.

But extreme anything is deadly regardless.
Reply
:iconroyalmockery:
RoyalMockery Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I agree coolcat10189. Conservative policies have been the ruling bodies for quite some time. But the emerging, younger generations are more liberal on some issues (like gay marriage) which is why law-makers who are in touch with the youth vote (Obama) have taken a more supportive stance on those issues, giving them notice and consideration that they have never received before.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Unbrideld anything will go too far. The fight between liberals and conservatives (if we us the american terminology here) is actually _healthy_ for a society. It is when the fight, arguing, bickering disappears that one should run for cover.

VE.
Reply
:iconroyalmockery:
RoyalMockery Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The problem in right now though is that we are in a terrible gridlock. The fighting and arguing has gotten to a point where no one can even come to a decent compromise. They new for well over a YEAR about the fiscal cliff on new years even. The deadline came and they still didn't have anything on the table. They finally came up with something in the wee hours in the morning, but then they continued to bicker like children over it and criticize the people who were actually trying to make a decent compromise for the betterment of our country.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I mostly agree with you. But if I may add two complements to your point,

1. A lot of this is demagoguery, which means that politicians are relying on us to stay in power.
2. Because of #1, we ultimately get the politicians we deserve. I.e. I blame the citizenry for the situation. If you don't want this bickering, don't elect a Newt Gingrich or a Ted Kennedy again and again...

VE.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
*looks at America*
*looks at Australia*

hmm.... :slow:
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Not sure what point you are trying to make.

I am not a US citizens, even if I live in the US. I am actually from one of them socialist european countries...so, if that is how you think, trying to draw superficial international lines, assuming your interlocutor can not think beyond that, you have missed my point, grieviously.

If that is not how you think, an explanation would be welcome.

VE.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The divide between the groups in America serves to make the two sides more extreme and for less things to be passed through, not 'helpful'. Australia has two major parties, but our parties are centre-right and centre-left. because there is less gap between the two, while they are different and keep each other in check, things actually get done, unlike america, where everything is always vetoed.
Reply
:iconroyalmockery:
RoyalMockery Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
It didn't used to always be that way. Right now American is in a gridlock. This is the least bipartisan the parties have been in generations. The divide isn't always as great as it is now. Unfortunately, one side (*cough* Republicans *cough*) have very loud-mouthed, very extreme members who refuse to budge on the issues and make ridiculous statements and propose even more ridiculous laws.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hm, Jingoism...I have seen enough Australian politics, or French, or Germany, or Belgium, or Netherlands, or New-Zealand or others, to know that that is ill-placed nationalism.

VE.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
:lmao: Thinking your nation is better than America does not mean you think your nation is perfect. Australia is far from it.

Because really, look at American politics... People fighting over if women can get pregnant from 'legitimate rape'. Yeah, even mediocre countries can best that.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Cornelia Rau.
Vivian Solon.

To look at one's country as better than others is jingoism.

VE.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.[1] In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests./i>


Thinking your country is not amazing, but better than 1 country =/= not that.


I highly doubt you think every country is equal.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Liberalism has a few good ideas, but overall takes them too extreme and oftentimes authoritarian. Assuming we're using the American definition. Not using the golden mean fallacy, but in this case you really need a little of the common sense of both sides, but lacking the crazy.
Reply
:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You're either the most sane person I've ran into these forums while I've been here, or we simply share nearly the exact same views. Or both, or neither.
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Believe me, it's probably not the second. But it's definitely the first.

The internet naturally forms hiveminds of certain types of people with minorities of other types in certain places. And these partially self regulate, and most people of different types opt to not bother, since they don't want to be the odd one out in a sea of a lot of people who are opposed to them. A lot of people don't realize this, and expect people in certain places to be a balanced selection only to be surprised that what they actually get is a horde in one place, and nothing but a few diehard extreme people who don't MIND being the odd one out in another, who then make the first big group feel even more validated since they see the opposers as crazy.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Liberalism is bourgeois. Radicalism is solidarity.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Define your terms. What do you mean by "liberalism"? It sounds as if you're really talking about libertinism. If not, this belongs in the Politics forum.
Reply
:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Huh!
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
By "liberalism" you mean "Huh!"?

That was not a rhetorical question. I wanted to know what you were talking about.
Reply
:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I just read the definition of libertinism, and taking this term into account, what I'm asking about is if you think liberalism can lead to libertinism, and if you consider libertinism to be an extreme.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Can liberalism lead to libertinism? Depends on if we're talking Classic Liberalism, Fiscal Liberalism, Social Liberalism, Democratic Liberalism, Radicalism, or any one of a hundred variants.

Classical liberalism -- that is, "liberalism" as it is meant by most everyone in the world apart from right-wing American pundits -- simply refers to the ideals of personal liberty and equality. Can "all men are created equal" lead to libertinism? No more than authoritarian systems can, I think.
Reply
:iconkyteglory:
KyteGlory Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
I don't think you know what liberalism is. When you say "everyone should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want," you're talking about libertarianism. Or anarchy. Those are completely different.
Reply
:iconwolftacular:
Wolftacular Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Huh!
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Revelation speaks of the result.
Reply
:iconcrimsonmagpie:
CrimsonMagpie Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
To infinity, and beyond!
Reply
:iconskulkey:
skulkey Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Now, put into less polite terms... Should everyone be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want just because they can? :I

that's not what liberalism is. liberalism is more authoritarian than that.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
I've been called extremely liberal for being a gay rights advocate. The lack of definition makes it hard to measure.
Reply
:icondragonflae:
Dragonflae Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Social liberalism, I'm probably an extremist in some aspects. Gay rights, for example.

However, liberalism pushes very little harmful agenda, unless you count the right to an abortion and global warming prevention harmful.

What's your political background?
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Gay rights is among the least extreme aspects of social liberalism. Since it's also included in social centrism. The only way to turn that extreme is like they do in England where they literally can put people in prison for making a comment which can be interpreted as mildly negative to gays on facebook. Or things of that nature. Which is not related to gay rights at all, but rather lack of free speech rights.
Reply
:iconcoolcat10189:
coolcat10189 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
I agree, but in the US it still seems to be a taboo (not with the government, but with the people) to talk about supporting gay rights or even showing action supporting it. My family is like that still. It just depends on where you were raised (not to mention in 3rd world countries it's apparently legal to kill people based on their sexual preference...)
Reply
:iconmpsai:
MPsai Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013   Digital Artist
Gay rights shouldn't really be considered extreme... 
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I'm pretty sure it's not. Of everything that composes liberals, that one's the most likely to also be in centrists. I don't know many center people who sit around thinking of how they can inconvenience gays on a daily basis.

Unless of course "rights" includes things like forcing people who are uncomfortable to not be allowed to decline to interact with them. Which I guess is pretty extreme.
Reply
:iconmpsai:
MPsai Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013   Digital Artist
What does being forced to interact with gay people mean exactly?
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Sixty year old wedding photographers who are forced by a court to take pictures for a gay wedding even though it clearly brings them great distress, and the people can easily go find another. If anything, point out to them that they need to point out in their advertising that they will not do anything they feel uncomfortable with.
Reply
:iconmpsai:
MPsai Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013   Digital Artist
It's not really fair to take single incidents of ludicrous lawsuits and say it encompasses gay rights.
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
That's uh... what I said in my first post.

"that one's the most likely to also be in centrists."

"Unless of course: extreme example some people support"
Reply
:icondragonflae:
Dragonflae Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
I was referring the means by which I would intend to accomplish them. Gay rights in general should be common sense.
Reply
Add a Comment: