How far will liberalism go?
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
I also disabled icons because they break my heart
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
I also disabled icons because they break my heart
Comments77
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Huh!
Extremes of anything isn't good. If something sounds way far out there, it's probably not a good idea.
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.
Why would it depend on that? One extreme doesn't depend on the other.
Well said!!
I actually think most of today's mainstream viewpoints are more conservative than liberal.
That being said, I am a die-hard liberal.
That being said, I am a die-hard liberal.
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.
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.
I think any extreme is dangerous.
Explain "Liberalism" first. I can't get your definition just yet.
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.
We have conservative principals already...too conservative if you ask me.
But extreme anything is deadly regardless.
But extreme anything is deadly regardless.
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.
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.
VE.
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.
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.
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.
*looks at America*
*looks at Australia*
hmm....
*looks at Australia*
hmm....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
VE.
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.
Cornelia Rau.
Vivian Solon.
To look at one's country as better than others is jingoism.
VE.
Vivian Solon.
To look at one's country as better than others is jingoism.
VE.
View all replies