No, Spencer coined the term. Brietbart and others then tried to sanitize it so they could use it to distinguish themselves from the neocons (they needed a word to do this since they're ideologically identical)
What is the scientific reasoning for liberals not being able to process opposing viewpoints?
Gavin Baker
Isaac Lewis
>muh facts
Perception dumbfuck, we aren't talking about mathematics.
Aiden Sanchez
>no shit you would, because I would be paraded around as a "LOOK NOT ALL X OPPOSE TRUMP"
Wow it's almost like every political party uses identity politics to target voters...
Daniel Cook
it's wrong to do that for both parties. What's your point?
Ethan Long
>Anyone with any view can post on /pol/, there is no controls preventing it or censoring your views
Aside from the spamming, derailment, and huge number of posters that makes threads go way too fast and overwhelmingly favors witty quips, memes and drive-by discourse over actual argument at any level of depth or sophistication, you mean. Presumably. Coupled with a collective inability to do any actual work to understand the most basic concepts of certain ideas, say marxism
Leftists aren't liberals lmao
Joshua Davis
tell us what you mean by liberal, OP
it may be illuminating for discussion
Nathaniel Jenkins
>it's wrong to do that for both parties. What's your point?
Political parties have to pander, that's how they win elections, remaining apolitical because someone might make an example out of you means you probably don't care about which party wins either way
Oliver Brooks
Fuck off to /pol/ already.
Luis Hall
you're not teaching me anything.
>remaining apolitical because someone might make an example out of you means you probably don't care about which party wins either way
i am not apolitical, but i certainly am not for the party that would use me as a token. And it just so happens that party is also the one who, even ironically, wants my demise. So why the fuck would i support you
Christopher Martin
>wants my demise
why do you think this?