Yet i'm faced with the realization that liberals acts as though racism is the ultimate mortal sin, not just a simple moral failing. Conversely historical vices such as sexual promiscuity or narcotic consumption aren't necessarily seen as being positive by liberals but aren't condemned nearly as harshly as racism is. Yet I should believe racism is worse for society than both.
What exactly are the justifications for this?
Liberalism means openness to change, you mong.
And that's just in America.
Most people who call themselves liberals have no idea what liberalism actually is. Your problem is that you are not looking into liberalism as a philosophy, you are observing people who don't understand liberalism and trying to deduce liberalism from their behavior. You're gonna have issues doing that.
>Liberalism means openness to chang
If your justication is change for change's sake you need to try harder.
Luckily for him, that's not what he said.
Never said that
>liberals
>not racist
I understand liberalism spans the gauntlet from classical, to modern, to libertarianism, to many others. I'm looking at it's application IRL however.
Merkel and Hillary Clinton are both powerful liberal politicians. It's that type of neo-liberal economics combined with social progressives that is of note for the purpose of this thread.
>Liberalism means openness to change, you mong. And that's just in America.
So what's your point with this statement?
>m-muh libruls coll me r-raciss when I say nigger
The explanation is really simple: what conservatives view as "moral degeneracy" doesn't hurt, and often helps the economy. Racism inside the country often hurts it. After all, these people are heirs to John "private property is more important than sanctity of life" Locke.
Racism is an ideological vice that both condemns and exalts people on factors outside of any particular individual's control, which is abhorrent to both the meritocratic and the egalitarian wings of historical liberalism, among of course other reasons. Sexual promiscuity and narcotic consumption are vices in lifestyle, not ideology, and choosing to indulge in them does not usually harm or dehumanise other people or threaten most of the various liberal ideologies.
The difficult point is in finding a practical, unitary definition for modern liberalism when it's become so diffuse and inconsistent across various national and ideological boundaries.
>The explanation is really simple: what conservatives view as "moral degeneracy" doesn't hurt, and often helps the economy.
How exactly does narcotic use, porn, and sexual promiscuity help the economy as opposed to making a complacent, inactive citizenry?
Fair enough.
Here we can see the diversity of liberal opinion.
I would argue that what helps the economy doesn't necessarily help us, as the economy is a virtual system incongruent with the natural world.
Unless of course ecological economics.
But yeah, utilitarian ethics succcc
Legalized narcotics hurt crime and bring income both to business and the state. Same with porn and legalized prostitution. And sexual promiscuity indirectly increases the consumption of related goods. Inactive citizens are great for stability and security, not so much for economy.
>Racism is an ideological vice that both condemns and exalts people on factors outside of any particular individual's control, which is abhorrent to both the meritocratic and the egalitarian wings of historical liberalism, among of course other reasons.
So would you describe liberalism as a system of morality that can be compared to other systems of morality such as Christian or Shinto?
The thing is, it's not about helping the economy. It's about individual liberty, something conservatives can't understand by nature. The tree of liberty gotta be litterd with the blood of patriots. :DD. Praise Jesus
Political ideologies are religions without god, after all.
Doesn't the right to act on racist urges count as individual liberty? If I want to discriminate based on race in my private cake shop why shouldn't I?
>If I want to discriminate based on race in my private cake shop why shouldn't I?
Actually, old-school liberalism says you can. You'll just go out of business eventually, thanks to bad rep and actively reducing your customer pool.
But how can every individual have Liberty if others have the right to take it from them? I'm not sure universal liberty can exist outside an Equalitarian social system.
>Actually, old-school liberalism says you can.
Yet modern western government mandate the opposite.
>You'll just go out of business eventually, thanks to bad rep and actively reducing your customer pool.
Unless your business is in a racist, homogenous community.
>But how can every individual have Liberty if others have the right to take it from them?
At what point do you have the liberty to deny someone based on your own whim?
>Yet modern western government mandate the opposite.
Who said they're economically liberal?
>Unless your business is in a racist, homogenous community.
If that was the case you wouldn't need a discrimination policy since there wouldn't be anyone to discriminate.
>Yet modern western government mandate the opposite.
That's because modern Western government isn't strictly liberal, philosophically speaking.
Is this really hard to understand?
I was making a point. Yet most self-processed "liberals" support anti-racist legislations based on the egalitarian principals the poster above us is referring to.
I made it clear I meant modern liberalism. What part about that is really hard to understand?
>Merkel is the leader of the Christian Party
>Literally approved of State Sponsored Antifa Bibke Burning
Really made me think
When you're allowed to refuse to give niggers cake.
This is where private (((property))) starts to fuck things up. Businesses ought to be created out of public resources with equal access if we're talking Liberty.
Christian DEMOCRATS twit. Plus their Christian in name only if your able to comprehend anything beyond names.
>Yet most self-processed "liberals" support anti-racist legislations based on the egalitarian principals the poster above us is referring to.
Yes, and that's because the ideals of the French Revolution weren't just *liberty*. It was also fraternity and equality as well.