Is he right...

lmao, Eurocuck detected. Republicans DID fight for blacks (see: Lincoln and the Civil War up to Eisenhower and the Civil Rights Act of 1957), and women's suffrage movements were overwhelming supported by Republicans in Republican states. Now, I'm not a Republican and have no allegiance to that party, but you're obviously someone not from our country that read a lot of silly political memes over the last decade and assumed it's been that way since the beginning.

There is no explicit "right to protect yourself" in the US Constitution, where did you get that from?

You only seem to care about identity politics and minority rights, and it's a good laugh if you think Europe has a great history there. Seriously, what country are you from? I'd be shocked if you don't have a nice genocide in your past somewhere.

Also, which European nations guaranteed a right to free speech in the 18th century, free from governmental censorship and persecution? And which ones respected property rights as strongly as did the USA?

>liberal
>defines the destruction of western civilization as "winning"

How does participating in democracy inherently "maximize" freedom? By that logic, supporting a referendum to ban homosexuals is "maximizing" freedom too.

People like that user keep bringing it up because people like you keep dismissing it. It is absolutely a part of the conversation regardless of either of our personal preferences.

>also, as a smug leftist myself, you must realise that - whether or not we're correct - we are winning.

This is very true and I would love to teach conservicucks to be less fucking whiny. The attitude of today's right can be summed up as just that- being whiny. Oh, boo hoo, they've got us outnumbered and they aren't playing fair.
This repulsive attitude is among the top three reasons I'm not a conservative. Then again, the same could be applied to liberals as well. Along with hypocrisy which also sums up both groups.

PS: Will liberals (especially Americunt liberals) PLEASE stop calling themselves "leftist". It's kind of triggering to us communist-kin. Thanks.

>Then again, the same could be applied to liberals as well.

Gee, you think? Read that post of yours back to yourself.

im not supporting either side, im showing why im suspicious of when politicians/commentators/journalists ect make appeals to freedom to support their belief.

and yes, supporting a referendum to ban homosexuals could be argued (not necessarily correctly) as maximising freedom by the trivial observation that it gives the people the freedom to deceide whether they live in a society which accepts it or not. in that way, all referenda are inherently freedom-maximising.

of course you've already skipped one step to "but you are giving people the freedom [to vote] to take the freedom [to be homosexual] of others"

which for the record, i agree with. but no doubt they would reply with "but you are giving people the freedom [to vote] to take the freedom [of homosexual] to take the freedom [by their destruction of the family and marriage] of our children" or something like that.

>communist-kin
lmao, enjoy your non-stem career faggot :^)

>"the conversation"

normally I try not to shit post more than once per thread but seriously, time to kill yourself my man

My argument is simply that participation in a political system makes no inherent statement regarding the amount of freedom in the system. Choice to participate does make such a statement, but you don't seem to consider that in your initial post.

if one side wants to destroy civilisation, and civilisation is being destroyed, then yes they are winning.

though please dont call me a liberal. only in america can you reduce politics to ideological dichotomies, m80

>lmao, enjoy your non-stem career faggot :^)

Non-stem careers are dank for spreading your ideologies, my dude. Sure, you can do it in stem too, shift focus around until it fits your narrative, but that takes more effort and subtlety.

This way you just walk into a high school or uni and spawn little commies before they even know how to spell ideology. And once they learn it's too late because they already accept it. That's dialectics for ya. Feels good.

Who is saying there's a dichotomy? Liberals are merely one of many failed political labels.

You jump to angst so quickly, and over the weirdest things too.

Try not doing that.

It's not weird, you're simply insensate of the stimulus to which I'm reacting.

So you're a memekid with a lexicon.

Look out. He means business.

precisely my point, you for example would ask "but what is the petition for". some people would say "it doesnt matter, petitions must also be encouraged" (remember in uk petitions cause debates in parliament).

there must of course be a point where you say "no it doesnt matter about the particular, this freedom must be universal" in which case, congrats bud, you've got rights.

in my original post, each refusal to consider the particular generates a separate theory of rights:

1. we have the right to have all beliefs discussed in parliament
2. a presidental candidate has the right to travel to uk
3. freedom from religious descrimination
4. freedom from terrorism/ islamofascism

i agree that "participation in a political system makes no inherent statement regarding the amount of freedom in the system", but thats not the point im making. my point is about the uncodifiablility of liberalism

Now we see that it's you who is in need of compassion.

... exactly, its a failed label. it means nothing. thats why i would never use it...
unlike you

sorry im not really understanding what your position is now. count to 10. take a deep breah and then make sure your shitposts make sense

WTF I hate europeans now
t. European

No, you didn't understand my point at all. I'm saying forget what a given referendum is about, I'm referring to the way in which you defined what freedom meant in the context of supporting a referendum versus having the right to, but you appear to have corrected yourself now.
In this context it obviously means someone of mainstream, Western left-leaning political views, generally socially liberal and supporting the welfare state.

this is why the reactionaries will win, liberals don't even know they exist

t. (You)

You showed why "freedom" is a buzzword that only appeals to emotions and shouldn't be used in any logical reasoning. Same applies for "justice". How much I hate this word, it should be considered obscene.

Any word can be distorted to mean something incorrect from its intended purpose. Give me one word with political and philosophical significance that isn't a "buzzword"

Have you ever dabbed so hard you started thinking about whether the word "buzzword" is a buzzword? Keeps me up at night.

ProTip: Doesn't, because I strive to have rather coherent belief systems. Deconstruction, no matter at what it is aimed, is rarely coherent.

The problem isn't even that it was distorted, but rather that it does not mean anything in the context it is usually used. And those few who actually do have some logical and consistent understanding of what "freedom" means very seldom agree with each other.

>also, as a smug leftist myself, you must realise that - whether or not we're correct - we are winning.
are you stuck 5 years in the past?

then it is not - as he claimed - "one of the many failed political labels".
the inconsistency is more offensive to me than its falsehood

it is still a meaningful term. you can still do arguments like "X is good for freedom due to Y" but you cant do stuff like "which of X or not-X is best for freedom"

more like 150. i mainly consume older media. all the modern media i consume is guardian, lefty philosophy and /pol/

>2016
>reading comments on news websites

The only people who actually comment on those are people in their 50's trying to figure out this whole internet thingie and /pol/

The Guardian is a pretty good paper as long as you stay away from the comments and opinion section

>tfw Socially Liberal , Fiscally Conservative

i like the opinion pieces from celebs. zizeks done a couple. people like that.

shit tier position
right wing economics requires a right wing society

Exactly. Like most problems in our political discourse, it comes down to different sides having different definitions of words. If two people have different definitions of an important word like "freedom" it's possible to have many "correct" solutions and the debate can't progress at all.

For other examples of this see racism, sexism, equality, and every other buzzword tossed around tumblr and /pol/

If you're a conservative in your twenties, you're heartless. If you're a liberal in your forties, you're brainless.

Liberal views are more """moral""", conservative ones are more economical. When the millennials, who are predominantly liberal, move out of their parents house and have kids, when they start having actual, meaningful, responsibilities beyond "muh studies are so hard", then they'll realise that they don't want to be taxed more. They need that money. People might say that it's not just about themselves, it's about supporting society on the whole, but they're fucking liars. Everyone's out for themselves. People who are conservative in their twenties argue that their economic policies are better for others as well, maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong-you could argue either way but it doesn't matter, either way at that age they have no real obligations. Regardless of what they vote, it will have little impact on themselves. Which is why in your twenties you can have your delusions of a moral high ground and talk about how you're helping the less privileged, and why you ought to vote liberal at that age.

It's worth noting that I'm not a conservative, or a liberal. The arguments for both have been critiqued to death, it's delusional to say one is the "pinnacle of reason". I just try to live my left as best I can. Society is a concept that I have no business caring about.

There are words for those concepts: positive and negative liberty. Look them up.

This. Requiring people to take care of themselves, in general, is not considered socially liberal nowadays.

>Liberal views are more """moral""", conservative ones are more economical.

The problem is those economic views don't actually ever work. The end result of those economic views have ALWAYS ended up in building huge amounts of public/private debt which simply cannot be paid off and requiring the government to fix the problems they generate. Conservativism cannot actually stand on its economic record, the real enigma of conservativism is just a different brand of moralism.

youtube.com/watch?v=Tmi8cJG0BJo

>also, as a smug leftist myself, you must realise that - whether or not we're correct - we are winning.

the left is in decline and the right is in ascendancy. the left has totally assimilated itself with the political, cultural and media establishment -- it is no longer attractive to intelligent young people. independent minded intellectual types going forward will increasingly be attracted to the right because it is more exciting, more vital. the left no longer has anything interesting to say and is totally sterilized culturally; the right is interesting, counter-intuitive and taboo. the left's time of domination has not yet nearly reached its end, but it will face increasingly powerful attacks from the intellectual right going forward.

socially conservative, fiscally liberal is the true patrician stance.

>The problem is those economic views don't actually ever work

I said that.

Thanks. If I ever need an armchair psychologist, then I'll know where to look.

The face of young right wing "intellectuals" are faggots like Milo Yiannopoulos, there's literally no serious mass platform for that outside of a small strata of upper middle class white kids in the west. Being edgy isn't actually viewed as a positive outside of your /pol/ bubble.
The reality is conservatism reached its peak in the mainstream with the neo-conservative movement in the early 2000's and has been in chaos and slowly dying since then.

>The end result of those economic views have ALWAYS ended up in building huge amounts of public/private debt which simply cannot be paid off and requiring the government to fix the problems they generate
>The government being irresponsible with money is the fault of the free-market
You want to correct yourself there?

yiannopoulos is a crass populizer, a meme basically. he might act as some kind of "entry level" starting point but there is a much deeper far-right intellectual trend behind him, which people will increasingly get into because the left is intellectually moribund and ridiculous. there are now relatively few alternative right (distinct from the "alt right") big name commentators, it's a more grass roots trend, but steve sailer is probably still the figurehead.

Bad post.

government debt literally doesn't matter if you're a productive economy with a free floating fiat currency. read some modern monetary theory, bill mitchell's blog particularly.

you really misunderstand the point im making. im saying that liberalism is uncodifiable. you can show how a policy is derived from the principle [that maximising freedom is good] but you cant derive any policy from the principle objectively.

im not (like some people think i am) saying that this shows that "freedom" is a buzzword or meaningless or irrational or some subjective position. some arguments from the liberal principle may be better than others. im saying that the hope of "lets maximise freedom" leading to a particular set of policies are hopeless.

>the left is in decline and the right is in ascendancy

In several European elections...yes, but even that little narrative has enough plotholes in it to make it obvious it's not really safe to call this a "trend". There's socialist election winners as well. The right isn't in ascendancy- the radicals are, from both sides of the spectrum.

>the left has totally assimilated itself with the political, cultural and media establishment
Valid observation.

>it is no longer attractive to intelligent young people
To what you define as intelligent- probably not. To what society defines as intelligent young people- it's very appealing. And I can testify to that.

>independent minded intellectual types going forward will increasingly be attracted to the right because it is more exciting, more vital

I can assure you people getting mad pussy at uni because of their bland liberal views find their newfound leftism very vital, vibrant and exciting >the right is interesting, counter-intuitive and taboo
Again, this is true for any radical option. You're making it sound like Antifa is profoundly different (or at least more "boring") then Skinheads.

>the intellectual right
kekt

the problem is this.

back in the 50's the establishment (politicians, media, professors, teachers, parents) ect were right wing. then the youth rebelled against that.

now the establishment is left wing and the youth have been caught hook line and sinker. go to any college campus in america. the students all agree with their lefty professors.

>Being edgy isn't actually viewed as a positive outside of your /pol/ bubble.
Being edgy is what young people always do. Up to now they were liberal because it was edgy, and they are atheist because it's edgy in the USA. As long as being liberal and politically correct is mainstream, young people will genuinely enjoy /pol/ tier memes.

general question. is /pol/ satire or not? which of their views do they the actually believe and which are memes? did it start satire and devolve into what is now? also i want my lefty Veeky Forums back

the college population of the 50s-60s was much smaller today and certainly had a higher average intelligence. today's college population is much larger, much less intelligent on average; even at the elite institutions the students are more coddled, come from highly regimented upper middle class home schedules, etc. this creates a much more orthodox, passive atmosphere. the outlets to protest, such that they exist, are identity-fetishizing displays that are basically culturally condoned and always boil down to a demand that the universities and governments create more well-paying sinecures for academic degree holders. it is no surprise that college students in general will buy the left-wing lines from their professors with little resistance.

when i talk about the right being in ascendancy, im not talking about a large, identifiable political movement. im talking about the intellectual grass roots. it was until very recently that as intelligent young people came of age, radical left wing thought attracted the truly overwhelming majority -- it was subversive, counter-intuitive, exciting. it is no longer any of those things. large numbers of young people will continue to be attracted to the left; but the left has no become so ridiculous, so open to ridicule, so complacent and orthodox, that a much larger fraction of intelligent young people will be attracted to the radical left, which has a strong and growing online presence. and im not talking about people like milo or dumb youtubers, i mean people like steve sailer, the HBD blogs, places like salo forums, etc.

bookfags btfo foreverially in this ITT

boards aren't homogenous.

most everything is exaggerated for humorous purposes, but like any large community some people will buy it and really believe the bullshit.

"/pol/ is satire" is satire. What they say is an ironic exaggeration most of the time, but otherwise they mean it. I.e. the majority of them wouldn't actually support gassing the kikes and starting a race war now, yet they genuinely dislike western jews for their detachment and lack of nationalistic feelings towards the west (which is why jews are commonly found among the liberal and ultraliberal media)

>back in the 50's the establishment (politicians, media, professors, teachers, parents) ect were right wing
Yes and no. The 50s were coming off the heels of an all out war, which was demanding of resources. Chaotic times tend to lead to centralization of authority, both in the family and in the government. Traditional gender roles were favored among the growing suburban families. Government intervention was seen generally as a good thing. Believe it or not, the 50s were not nearly as religious as one would think. The big idea of the 50s was that it was "The end of ideology!" and "The age of science and progress!" because they just witnessed what rabid ideology can do. The thing people rebelled against in the 60s was moral complacency, both hippies and fundamentalists grew in this time period.

This sort of thing will happen again.

>identifying with a political stance

you've already lost

>tfw Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal

If liberals love freedom so much why do patriots like Bernie Sanders want to steal the majority of my paycheck every month? Do I not deserve the freedom to keep at least the majority of my own earnings?

The conservative movement actually have always increased the direct role the government plays in the economy, they might not like welfare transfers but have increased the actual role of government central planing by increasing the role the pentagon plays in the economy and all the spill over effects this has on the private sector.

See:
S. Melman's "The Permanent War Economy" and "Profits Without Production"
K.E. Boulding, The War Industry as a Sector of the Economy
B. Russett, What Price Vigilance?
Szymanski, "Military Spending and Economic Stagnation," American Journal of Sociology
W. Adams, "The Military Industrial Complex and the New Industrial State," American Economic Review

Conservatives are not against government planning of the economy, in fact most see it as absolutely necessary.
Never forget Regan and Bush promoted private debt driven consumer growth and then bailed out private creditor interests in the savings & loan crisis in the 80s and 2008 bailout of wall street on behalf of the "conservative movement".

>but there is a much deeper far-right intellectual trend behind him
I don't see this, all that's happening is some are trying to exploit the growth of populism to forward their own goals. There is no real intellectual force growing up that can replace neo-conservatism as a serious long lasting political force.

You will be paying for someone else's freedom. Aren't you a compassionate human being, after all?

Wow, when you put it that way it all makes sense!

>not using labels as convenient frameworks in which to explore your political beliefs
They're there for a reason, user.

I agree. You can keep criminals off the streets and simultaneously have no one feel the harmful effects of poverty.

The reality is your country has been actually slowly falling apart since the 80s. If big investments aren't made in infrastructure and your lower class soon you'll probably collapse USSR style and the political chaos will make all your savings worthless any ways. Freedom isn't free after all.

>you'll probably collapse USSR
They are nowhere near the USSR level of being fucked up. The most of their worries would be massive civil unrests put down by the combined force of army, police and militia. Founding fathers knew what they are doing when they introduced 2nd amendment.

No. Life's decisions (and decision-making- judgement- is the defining feature of the human experience) are on an is/ought dichotomy. We SHOULD live in a state of perfect freedom, but people who live that way end up dead, or as slaves to those who understand the necessity of duty.

The problem is, the way it should be is always more attractive than the way it is. It's hard to sell repressing oneself in the name of safety, especially to a populace that's known nothing but safety for generations.

>there are people that still unironically use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative'
liberals are too blind to see that their worldview is being pulled out from under them and conservatives are losers by definition
come home right man

you dont think university students in the 50s-60s came "from highly regimented upper middle class home schedules"?
the upper class and lower class are great. its the middle class we must gas

im sure the current upper middle classes who tend to populate the elite universities are much more micro-managed by their parents than they were decades ago, yes.

You're right, but most people here are the loser youth who gravitate towards the right wing (ignorance and fear), and don't get it.

Fight the good fight.

Seeing as the initial women's rights and black rights movement were all libertarian at its core, I really don't see why you're claiming those "victories" for "liberals".

the next 5-10 years are going to be very rough for you

I like you, and I agree with your conclusion.

I think really what the problem is, is agreeing on WHAT freedom is first. Freedom to, freedom from is the basics, but if you look further you start to identify what freedom to might entail.

For me, and Dewey, freedom to arises from sound education. A person becomes truly free when they can understand all opportunity before then, ethically and rationally choose among them, and have the critical capacity to actually pure those ends. Freedom from would entail limiting external obstacles to this, but freedom to requires use to provide the child with adequate schooling.

It gets more complex, but I think I made my point, we should start with a joint defintiin, then examine what actually gives rise to both kinds of freedom.

>the lower class is great

le epic shitpost

Could he have chosen a less edgy name for the movement?

>not admiring the aesthetic of a poor irish factory worker spending his meagre earnings at the pub and going home to beat his wife

We got an astrologer over here y'all! So edgy he goes beyond the left right dichotomy with pure idiocy.

>romanticizing poverty

>not romanticizing poverty

>implying human beings don't have autonomy

Only people who have never been poor do that.

who cares we're just having fun tbqh