Liberalism Is Corrupt - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15019265
Liberalism is corrupt for the following reasons:

Liberals Mock Non Liberals Out Of Satire - The liberal ideology is corrupt. Liberals mock non liberals in a liberal viewpoint. Liberals want to frustrate non liberals so that liberals can look correct. Believing that looking correct is correct is corrupt. Liberals believe this because liberalism is a flexible ideology.

Liberals Find Excuses To Go Against People They Blacklist - Liberals frustrate their opponents, hoping that their frustration could make their opponents angry, and their non liberal angry opponents can do "racist" things to liberals.

Liberal Leaders Are One Sided - Liberals with power in society, such as liberal managers or administrators in capitalist economies, abuse non liberals on purpose to mock them.

Liberal Leaders Defend Criminals - If one reported a crime to a liberal leader, the liberal leader would tell the reporter that they are "racist," and that speaking against a crime is "hate speech," and that going against those criminal actions are going against "freedom," so liberal leaders would abuse those who go against crime. For example: Someone is being socially hostile to me and is attacking me. I report the attacker, the liberal leader defends the attacker, and calls me "hateful," and abuses me for being "hateful."

Liberals Support Recreational Drug Usage - Recreational drugs mess people up psychologically, thus making them socially abusive and bad.

Conditioning Non Liberals By Aggressively Mocking Their Ideologies - Liberals pretend to be the non liberal that they are encountering, but in a bad way on purpose. The liberal lies to the non liberal by claiming that that is what they are doing (what the liberal is mocking to the non liberal).

Complaining About Social Decay Is "Wrong" - Run down areas, vandalism, and Zionist infested cultures are symbols of social liberalism ruling an area. Feeling uncomfortable around that alone is "racist" giving liberals false excuses to attack the uncomfortable person.

Liberals Use Political Correctness To Defend Their Criminal Actions - Is it really "racist" to be respectful?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15019311
Liberals Mock Non Liberals Out Of Satire - Conservatives do this, as well.

Liberals Find Excuses To Go Against People They Blacklist - Conservatives do this, as well.

Liberal Leaders Are One Sided - Conservative leaders are two-faced.

Liberal Leaders Defend Criminals - Conservative leaders are criminals.

Liberals Support Recreational Drug Usage - Conservatives do, as well.

Conditioning Non Liberals By Aggressively Mocking Their Ideologies - Conservatives do this, as well.

Complaining About Social Decay Is "Wrong" - Conservatives cause this social decay.

Liberals Use Political Correctness To Defend Their Criminal Actions - Conservatives are criminals.


Oh wait... were you being sarcastic?
#15019313
Godstud wrote:Liberals Mock Non Liberals Out Of Satire - Conservatives do this, as well.

Liberals Find Excuses To Go Against People They Blacklist - Conservatives do this, as well.

Liberal Leaders Are One Sided - Conservative leaders are two-faced.

Liberal Leaders Defend Criminals - Conservative leaders are criminals.

Liberals Support Recreational Drug Usage - Conservatives do, as well.

Conditioning Non Liberals By Aggressively Mocking Their Ideologies - Conservatives do this, as well.

Complaining About Social Decay Is "Wrong" - Conservatives cause this social decay.

Liberals Use Political Correctness To Defend Their Criminal Actions - Conservatives are criminals.


Oh wait... were you being sarcastic?


I think she is using classic definition of liberalism. But that goes for Marxists/Communists/Socialists also. (Same things)
#15019314
I think she's making it all about her feelings on the subject, and making her look rather ignorant at the same time... But hey, it's a free world! :D
#15019320
You're all filthy liberals including you @SSDR, @Godstud, and @JohnRawls

You can only repent if you convert to Anarchism and stroke the beard of Russian Santa. God bless him. /s
By Hindsite
#15019354
Many ideas of social liberalism sound good, even Christian. However, it results in over taxation in order to force the people to pay for all the programs that they say are to help those that are being treated unfairly in society. It also leads to many abortions, since social justice means a women should have the right to decide what to do with her own body, which includes a fetus within it. Social liberalism has resulted in same-sex marriages, which have forced some religious people to bake special cakes for those marriages, against their religious beliefs. It also means one can decide what sex they wish to be identified as, regardless as to how they were physically born. Social liberalism means open borders between countries and providing welfare to all people regardless of citizenship status. In effect, it eliminates such a thing as nationalism and brings in globalism. Social liberalism seems to me to attempt to do away with most, if not all, conservative traditions and values. That is why I believe most conservatives resist many liberal social justice actions.
By foxdemon
#15026622
JohnRawls wrote:I think she is using classic definition of liberalism. But that goes for Marxists/Communists/Socialists also. (Same things)



I don’t think she is using a classic definition. Liberalism, really, is a form of statism. The idea is to limit the power of the state and hold those who control the state accountable for what they do with that power. Since a liberal state is restricted in what it can make people do, the society it presides over is necessary pluralistic.

Given SSDR is referring to social behaviour, it is a misrepresentation of liberalism. I would describe what she illustrates as moral snobbery. In the English world, evidence for this behaviour can be found in 14th century estates literature, such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. So it predates liberalism by centuries. Certainly the ideational context has changed from medieval Catholicism to contemporary liberal pluralism, but SSDR is conflating snobbery with ideology.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15026635
Unthinking Majority wrote:You mean liberalism as in leftwingers, not liberalism as in liberal democracy right?

Social liberalism is social decay. Social liberalism is down ridden, ghetto culture. This is an example of social liberalism:
Image

Democracy is unstable, corrupt, and gives power to potentially abusive people.
#15026678
SSDR wrote:Social liberalism is social decay. Social liberalism is down ridden, ghetto culture.


Define "social liberalism". There's 2 completely different political meanings of the word. One means liberal democracy, one means being left-leaning.

Democracy is unstable, corrupt, and gives power to potentially abusive people.


If democracy is unstable how do you characterize every other system of government?
User avatar
By Verv
#15026681
Unthinking Majority wrote:If democracy is unstable how do you characterize every other system of government?


Let's say that we distinguished republics from democracies... We could conclude that republics are far more stable. But it would be pretty hard to slice this cake in such a way as to make everyone agree that we have accurately and properly distinguished a democracy from a republic and vice versa.

I think we also have to consider that we live in fundamentally different times than a hundred years ago, or than five hundred years ago. Not in terms of the definitions of right and wrong shifting, but in terms of how the balance of power is played out between people. I am a big fan of Jose Ortega y Gasset's observation that everything changed when a peasant could kill a Knight. Governments had to begin interacting differently with the people, and the feudal lord and his retinues were suddenly on a very, very different playing field than they had been a few centuries earlier.

The same is true for us in the digital age.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15026682
Liberalism isn't corrupt. Capitalism is.

People who talk "left" when mentioning liberalism, really don't have a clue what they are talking about.
#15026704
SSDR wrote:Complaining About Social Decay Is "Wrong" - Run down areas, vandalism, and Zionist infested cultures are symbols of social liberalism ruling an area. Feeling uncomfortable around that alone is "racist" giving liberals false excuses to attack the uncomfortable person.


Oh I get it, you're just an old-school run of the mill racist. We sent tens of millions to their deaths to destroy this kind of irrelevant thinking 80 years ago.

So we got fascists, add to that all the damn Communists on this board. Are their any original thoughts on this forum whatsoever? Does anyone have any new ideas that have been created in the last freakin hundred years instead people still hauling out these failed experiments from the back of the idea closet?? FFS.

Oh and then there was that nutter Rei who wanted to literally kill every Muslim on earth. Are you guys all 15 years old? I actually used to be a Marxist commie. Then I grew up & moved out of my mommy & daddy's house. Why the fuck do i still post here?? I could use all this time to make more money and get laid by hotter chicks.
#15026715
Verv wrote:Let's say that we distinguished republics from democracies...


Well we'd have to do that for developing countries i gather, or countries in the past, since westernized governments are pretty stable in modern times regardless of type. Probably what the opening poster is referring to, as are you.

I think we also have to consider that we live in fundamentally different times than a hundred years ago, or than five hundred years ago. Not in terms of the definitions of right and wrong shifting, but in terms of how the balance of power is played out between people. I am a big fan of Jose Ortega y Gasset's observation that everything changed when a peasant could kill a Knight. Governments had to begin interacting differently with the people, and the feudal lord and his retinues were suddenly on a very, very different playing field than they had been a few centuries earlier.

The same is true for us in the digital age.


This is a damned brilliant observation by Gasset. Wow, never heard of it before. Thanks for sharing.

In the time of knights pre-gun powder, yes peasant had a tough time killing a knight, and would fare even worse against a group of well-trained archers. Seems to me in the period between 1. the end of knights/wide-scale popularization of firearms and 2. when armies solidified the use of mechanized warfare in the early 20th century, the populace had a unique opportunity to rise up and defeat armies, as you infer. The French Revolution would have gone a lot differently in 1989 vs 1789.

Since the early 20th century it's far harder for the public to overthrow a regime. AK-47's and grenades versus tanks & bombs is no fight, and guerilla warfare (hiding from those armies) is the only chance, unless there's a coup led by the actual military itself against the gov.

I agree that the digital age gives a lot of new power to non-government actors, but it also gives a lot of power to governments via surveillance, so has the balance of power really swung?
User avatar
By Verv
#15026722
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well we'd have to do that for developing countries i gather, or countries in the past, since westernized governments are pretty stable in modern times regardless of type. Probably what the opening poster is referring to, as are you.


When the only democracies that we are interested in counting and measuring are all in Western Europe and North America/Australia, then yes, democracy is pretty stable. But when we look at places like Haiti, Venezuela, Pakistan, Egypt, the Philippines, etc., we see that they really are not very stable.

You can argue that these places just do not meet the threshold for being democratic, but wouldn't it also count if it is the failure of democracy that has led to this state of quasi-democracy?

If we were to excuse the instability around the time of Oliver Cromwell in England as well, you know, that was just monarchy failing, and like, it wasn't monarchy anymore when the Lord Protector got into power, it would sound dubious.

This is a damned brilliant observation by Gasset. Wow, never heard of it before. Thanks for sharing.

In the time of knights pre-gun powder, yes peasant had a tough time killing a knight, and would fare even worse against a group of well-trained archers. Seems to me in the period between 1. the end of knights/wide-scale popularization of firearms and 2. when armies solidified the use of mechanized warfare in the early 20th century, the populace had a unique opportunity to rise up and defeat armies, as you infer. The French Revolution would have gone a lot differently in 1989 vs 1789.

Since the early 20th century it's far harder for the public to overthrow a regime. AK-47's and grenades versus tanks & bombs is no fight, and guerilla warfare (hiding from those armies) is the only chance, unless there's a coup led by the actual military itself against the gov.

I agree that the digital age gives a lot of new power to non-government actors, but it also gives a lot of power to governments via surveillance, so has the balance of power really swung?


I would say it is certainly more difficult to determine how a revolution would go now than it was before. There are too many factors.

But yes, there was a point earlier when the local militiamen were on much better footing then than they are now.
By Hindsite
#15026731
Hindsite wrote:Many ideas of social liberalism sound good, even Christian. However, it results in over taxation in order to force the people to pay for all the programs that they say are to help those that are being treated unfairly in society. It also leads to many abortions, since social justice means a women should have the right to decide what to do with her own body, which includes a fetus within it. Social liberalism has resulted in same-sex marriages, which have forced some religious people to bake special cakes for those marriages, against their religious beliefs. It also means one can decide what sex they wish to be identified as, regardless as to how they were physically born. Social liberalism means open borders between countries and providing welfare to all people regardless of citizenship status. In effect, it eliminates such a thing as nationalism and brings in globalism. Social liberalism seems to me to attempt to do away with most, if not all, conservative traditions and values. That is why I believe most conservatives resist many liberal social justice actions.

I am not sure of the liberalism SSDR was talking about, but the social liberalism I was referring to is that of the American Democrat Party of today. They are the liberal Democrats that allow drug addicted bums to camp out in their controlled cities and allow them to scatter their garbage to attract rats and roaches. They run sanctuary cities to protect criminal illegal immigrants from being deported by ICE. It is simply disgraceful.



New York City is full of people — and pests. But while cockroaches, rats, and mice are everywhere, some places are more infested than others. We asked a professional exterminator to tell us what to watch out for, and where in the city he would simply never want to live.
March 18, 2019


Pest control company Orkin, placed Chicago as number one on their list of Top 50 Rattiest Cities.


Los Angeles plagued with trash, rats and typhoid fever
Published on Jun 3, 2019
Last edited by Hindsite on 16 Aug 2019 10:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15026734
Unthinking Majority wrote:If democracy is unstable how do you characterize every other system of government?

No state in the world is a Pure democracy. Pure democracy has never existed.

People who often advocate a pure "democracy" are the ones who oppress themselves, blame the police for that, and destroy everything around them.

It is like a rat digging a hole, taking a shit where they sleep "because they can," and blaming the lynx that sleeps next to the rat for wanting to eat it.

Look at Detroit in USA. The people there dig holes (drugs, gangs, believing that it is "racist" to WORK), they take a shit (they burn homes and turn them into slums), and blame the police (they protect innocent people from gangsters and violent street people) for the gangster that stole their life.
Election 2020

Can you cite any one regulation that was cut that […]

Antifa are terrorists because they make nazis fee[…]

Trump and Russiagate

and only simple minded lemmings need to get Obese[…]

The Popular Vote...

Zionist, globalism is a fact of life. It is the r[…]