[Closed] What's wrong with being 'a liberal'?

Nothing. It's what swivel-eyed right wingers call sensible people.

Meant to be a derogatory term in that context. Basically the same as hand wringing lefties, the professionally offended etc. Too soft to deal with anything, pc & elf n safety gawn mad.

America seems to have got the idea that being a "liberal" means you are a damp wishy-washy overly-politically-correct terrorist-apologiser that is scared of his own shadow.

All part of politics swinging to the right I think.

(Seems to be spreading to the UK a bit too).

It's also easier than actually trying to sensibly debate the issues involved.

Yes, I think its mainly down to misconceptions of what liberal actually means, as above, people trying to change the meaning of the word in popular culture doesn't help.

It's also easier than actually trying to sensibly debate the issues involved.

Similar to just calling someone anti-Semitic when they don't agree with you 😉

There's a grumpy old sod that's part of a community that i post on in Facebook who has recently discovered virtue signaling. It's really starting to grate...

Virtue Signalling:

The term is chiefly used by commentators to criticize the expression of tribalistic socially progressive views on social media,[2][3] but has also been used to describe analogous behaviour in other groups and by signalling theorists to discuss conspicuous piety among the religious faithful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

In the USA they often refer to “bleeding heart liberals” as a derogatory term to describe someone who they see as letting their beliefs and morals get in the way of doing what they think needs to be done. It is a classic republican way of putting down a liberal point-of-view without actually having to debate the issue at hand.

Edit: Essentially, it's often portrayed in the right-wing media as being weak and easily manipulated, which is ironic, given the mouths from whom it is most commonly spoken.

Bails, he's basically outnumbered by people with a different viewpoint to him, thus everybody else who posts there is 'virtue signaling' for having similar opinions. Yes, he's a bit of a ****.

The demonisation of decency.

Basically, the yanks worked out years a go that in the era of mass communication, all you have to do is repeat something often enough and people will believe it.

Phrases are picked up on, repeated and become part of peoples consciousness.

The greedy and selfish have justified their behaviour to themselves years ago.
This is a very simple, effective way of getting the people they exploit to agree with them.

It wouldn't be possible if they didn't control the media, but too late to worry about that now.

Apparently 'liberal' is not wanting to spend billions of pounds on nuclear weapons, or wanting a free-for-all health service, or thinking that anti-homeless spikes are are wrong, or campaigning for equal rights for all or any other sensible, decent thing.

It's better than being called a girl though...

Nothing, nothing at all - reactionary types consider it an insult, as it's different to them, which is of course part of being reactionary - different = wrong.

I've been called a Liberal, I don't disagree, if I really want to wind them up, I say "thank you".

Post-9/11 trend. I was living in the States in 2002 and spent a fair bit of time on political forums. It was very common then among the mushrooming armchair-bound Libertarian Right to use repetitive puerile catchprases to denigrate what they saw/see as the Enemy. Being an armchair warrior was (evidently) frustration itself. They couldn't personally bomb some Muslims but they could blame and insult liberals on the internet 'Terrorist-appeasing liberal' was one of the more polite terms for anyone who even looked as if they might question the ethical and tactical ramifications of 'Bomb Mecca into glass, nuke the Middle East'. Eventually it just became shortened to 'liberal'. A simple word/meme to describe an extreme stereotype, ie a beta male or screeching feminist who wants not only to steal your wages and give them to foreigners, but also murders unborn babies in their millions while inviting marauding brown-skinned immigrants (see 'terrorists') to set up in your home, rape your daughter then make your son gay before weeing in the shoes of Real 'Mercans.

I may be resorting to mild hyperbole but we are talking about the internet...

A whole generation has grown up with the internet as a primary educator. It was only a matter of time before the trend hit these shores. Social media sealed it. In there it really is as black/white/Left/Right as 'Remainians vs Leavers'. So you are either on the 'Right' side, or else you are a cowardly, gun-grabbing baby-murdering transgender-loving terrorist-kissing girlie-man Commie traitor Muslim-coddling liar who hates The Nation.

The word "Liberal" is probably the most troublesome and misused word in politics. It can and does mean just about anything. The only area where it's meaning can be understood to some degree of certainty is when used in economics, where it has little in common with being nice to people.

It's from the West Wing, but the sentiment is correct

Santos: It's true, Republicans have tried to turn 'liberal' into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.

Vinick: A Republican president ended slavery.

Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican. What
happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed every one of those programs. Every one. So when you try to hurl the word 'liberal' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.

OP yes age old political insult in the US where the politics is much more to the right, eg imo Democrats = Tories and Republicans = 😯

As such being a Liberal is one step up from a Communist. Remember the US was colonised by many with strong religious view such as the the pilgrim fathers plus many Italians and Irish. As such Liberal views are those not aligned to strict Christianity.

It's just a more international / universal term for describing a "Nick Clegg".

I had the misfortune of watching an awful Pat Condell video once, and he seemed to do this quite a lot, inventing an imaginary leftie liberal to "argue" with in his one man rants at the camera.

might question the ethical and tactical ramifications of 'Bomb Mecca into glass, nuke the Middle East'.

I was permanently banned from a forum around that time for daring to offer the "libtard" counterpoint that nuking 371 million people, and plunging the rest of the world into a nuclear winter, might not be a proportionate response.

Liberal (in the British, middle of the road sense) is better than extremism of any sort.

Liberal (in the British, middle of the road sense) is better than extremism of any sort.

Well you would say that, you're a bloody liberal.

Liberal (in the British, middle of the road sense) is better than extremism of any sort.

In peacetime yes. It's not a strategy to deal with extremist aggression though.

In peacetime yes. It's not a strategy to deal with extremist aggression though.

[img] [/img]

</stereotype>

In peacetime yes. It's not a strategy to deal with extremist aggression though.

I disagree.

The times when a liberal voice is really needed are the times when it is hardest to remain liberal. (Much the same as Human Rights in that regard.)

Without that voice it is all too easy for mob mentality to take over and to meet hate with hate, extremism with extremism, which may feel justified in the short term but ultimately solves nothing.

yellow ties are ghastly

Liberals believe that given freedom of choice the masses (and markets) will choose the best option. Authoritarians believe that those that know best should make choices for the masses.
You can be right or left wing politically and take either of the above positions.

Liberals believe that given freedom of choice the masses (and markets) will choose the best option

*Devil's advocate*

So why do liberals get so upset when the masses make choices they don't like?

If someone wishes to call me out as a Liberal or Leftie, then I take it as the highest compliment.

Liberals believe that given freedom of choice the masses (and markets) will choose the best option.

Politically liberal and economically liberal are not the same
in the same way as a conservative in Russia - is basically a commie= where as a conservative here is basically a fascist with better PR 😉

And on different issues too.

Referring to people in such simplistic terms, all of us, encourages us to think simplistically.

That's why those in power encourage it,
because people who are happy to stick labels on themselves are easier to control.

I'm a libertarian on some issues authoritarian on others.
Most people are, if they're honest with themselves.

Demonising either position without reference to context is harmful.

OED definition (Adjective):

Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.

(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

IMO the UK has a general liberal out look, and I think that's a good thing.

What is meant by liberal

Pinko-commie lefty.

its an old fashioned way of saying progressive

You're basically one step away from being a SJW

The demonisation of decency.

This.

So why do liberals get so upset when the masses make choices they don't like?

Leftwing/Rightwing Liberal/Conservative are 4 political outlooks on two axis. Google 'Political Compass'; be sure to look at the website of that name though as there's a lot of revisionist versions out there with a high degree of bias.

The American interpretation of 'Liberal' is a catchall term (often used as a slur) for anyone whose views fit within the remit of Social Democracy.

Conservative is an even wider grouping and difficult to define, particularly when you add confusing terms like libertarianism, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, fiscally liberal...

People can pick any term and make it derogatory.

I got called four-eyes as an insult in school (only a few times though). FFS, something like 60% of people need eyesight correction, hardly an insult is it? But it was made into one.

See also

Socialist
Pinko
Tree hugger
Politically correct
Nanny state
Bleeding heart

etc etc etc.

The political compass is fundamentally flawed.

It's perfectly normal to hold two positions on two different issues which place you in very different places.

And you can't average this out, it's too simplistic because we hold some things much dearer than others.

Liberals believe that given freedom of choice the masses (and markets) will choose the best option.

So I say

So why do liberals get so upset when the masses make choices they don't like?

Then you say

Probably because the masses aren't liberal in their views and they vote based on their pre-existing prejudices.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that "liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

Sorry, I know I'm trolling a bit, but this is the fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of contemporary "liberalism" and might play a small part in why people that aren't liberal (but not necessarily extremists) like to use the term as an insult.

In my experience, self-proclaimed "liberals" are among the worst for political pigeonholing and petty reductionism.

The liberal believes that the only informed conclusion can be liberalism, fro a philosophical point of view.

Expounding this idea is a form of education, not forcing of views.

You are describing character traits that apply to all people, regardless of belief.

Anyone can be manipulated, regardless of class or status.
Our views and nature change as we are influenced by external circumstance.
That's how societies develop and are controlled.

But it's easier, cheaper and more effective to prey on baser desires, such as greed and prejudice.

We're all scared of the dark, just as we all love our children.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that "liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

The World has been made ready for Trump. Social media + echo-chamber politics is so much faster than fact-checking and so much more instantly satisfying than having real bonafide scruples. The narrative is driving the narrative. The content is not even in the running. I hate to say it - but I think the net-effect (ha!) of the intertubes made us all dumberer?

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that "liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

@Rusty Spanner

The political compass is fundamentally flawed.

It's perfectly normal to hold two positions on two different issues which place you in very different places.

And you can't average this out, it's too simplistic because we hold some things much dearer than others.

For sure but it's likely that someone who isn't a homophobe isn't anti-abortion, a third wave feminist isn't anti-Muslim. A lot of it is about tolerance to social change or having a mindset that adapts to change. So having localised positions on general stance towards politics can be broken down in fairly simple terms. It's basically a mindset.

*pinches self* a post from jambalaya about politics I totally agree with! He's been hacked! 😉

Liberals believe that given freedom of choice the masses (and markets) will choose the best option.

This is not a definition of "liberal" that I recognise at all.

So I don't see any contradiction in this:

"liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

e.g. to me a liberal ideal might be to treat people as equals regardless of their race - that doesn't mean they have to be "happy" about the opinions of racists.

Being described as 'Liberal' pertains to an inverse correlation with classical liberalism - pretty much the single track zeitgeist personified ..

[img] [/img]

I was called a "typical liberal hypocrite" on another forum because I thought it was bad when the police mistakenly killed innocent people, but I'd still want the police to help me if I was being attacked. IME it's used as an insult when someone has run out of sensible things to say.

Bails has the internet definition of liberal right there.
Virtue signaling is the one that really annoys me it is always deployed by right wingers and seems to imply that there is something reprehensible about doing something good or avoiding being a dick .

Bails has the internet definition of liberal right there.

At the Republican Convention yesterday one of the delegates was warned to be careful speaking to Emily Maitless (BBC Newsnight) as she was a "liberal reporter"

For sure but it's likely that someone who isn't a homophobe isn't anti-abortion,

Not sure that's true, tbh.

seems to imply that there is something reprehensible about doing something good or avoiding being a dick .

...they believe that governments are best placed to deliver the rights and freedoms of individuals

Libertarians*, in contrast, have a much better approach to delivering the rights and freedoms of individuals

* mentioned due to reference to political compass - isnt the second axis authoritarianism /libertarianism? Not liberalism....

Awful people will always look for a way to feel better about the fact that many other people aren't awful- denouncing them as do-gooders, social justice warriors, lefties, white knights, liberals. It's how they live with themselves. Once you realise you don't do good, you try and make doing good into a negative. When you see you're an extremist you denounce being liberal. It's way easier than stopping being awful.

Libertarians*, in contrast, have a much better approach to delivering the rights and freedoms of individuals

"much better?" care to define it closer than that?

But given that its you, and most of your posts seem to be a Kerouac-esque stream of consciousness, I shan't hold my breath. 😆

As you asked so nicely nick

Both believe and emphasise [b]the liberty of the individual [/b]- so far, so good

But the distinction?

Liberalism is basically about having individual freedom guaranteed by governments - ooops

Libertarianism is about having that freedom through as little government involvement as possible - "much better"

And breath out.....

Ah, "much better" in the academic sense I presume? and what sort? Anarchy is a form of Libertarianism, and has the added advantage of having no govt involvement at all...

It is indeed, hence the other axis on the political compass

I prefer the term "as little involvement as possible" rather than "no government" - an important distinction

Libertarianism is basically the belief that being free from interference from the state is more important than your right not to be murdered in the street. People who think it's better are mostly either a) lucky enough to be pretty safe from the things that the state protects people from or b) the ones the state protects people from.

an important distinction

you're just another socialist... You liberal 😆

Northwind, I think of it as a sort of Hyper Darwinism. It's adherents think that it's all about the individual, but that sort of ignores the fact that Humans don't/can't really function like that...

Nihilism for the big win.

I think some people think too deeply on this forum! 😕

How can one think "too deeply"

Are you afraid of knowledge?

Are you afraid of knowledge?

No..not at all, but trying to define what you are by what you think and giving it all various names that some people agree/disagree with as being correct/incorrect is all a bit beyond my comprehension. I have lots of ideas and beliefs, but would never pigeon hole myself like that.

Rock ape, I refer you to my earlier conclusion

teamhurtmore - Member 
yellow ties are ghastly

POSTED 2 DAYS AGO #

It's not really pigeon holing though is it. The philosophies that prop up political ideologies are well understood. and there's no compromise or compartmentalisation required to hold a spectrum of beliefs; hence one can be a socialist-libertarian

Mr Woppit - Member

Nihilism for the big win.

Nihilism? Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an[i] ethos[/i].

Nihilism? Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.

@teamhurtmore - the left/right access of the political compass shows Liberalism/Conservatism, 'Liberal' is short for liberalist- also known as progressive, the opposite to conservative.