I’ve always considered myself to be a liberal (and still do, based on what liberal actually means) but over the last year or so I’ve become increasingly skeptical of far left rhetoric and ideologies (I guess that’s obvious because I’m here!). I’m just so frustrated that we can’t have conversations about these things without being “cancelled” or labeled a bigot etc.
I’ve become so confused by the “news” and “statistics” that I really don’t know what to believe. But I know what I am seeing on the far left is not “acceptance” or true liberalism. If it was true liberalism we’d be able to disagree, right? Or at least have conversations about controversial topics without demonizing the “other side”? As in, we’d value diversity of thought, right? And we’d have checks and balances that work to protect communities from unintentionally causing themselves harm?
I know I’m saying stuff that is obvious but I guess I just need to say it out loud (or in text) because there are so few people I can talk about this stuff with in my real life. It’s been on my mind so much recently. I’m easily influenced, I know that about myself, and if I was a teen right now I know for a fact I would be so confused. I’m only a few years out from being a teen (I’m 23) and even 2 years ago I was considering using she/they pronouns for literally no reason. I’m a cis woman / biological female that identifies as a woman and presents as a woman (and a pretty feminine one at that). I’ll always respect people’s pronouns and not question them externally, but there was no reason I needed to use she/they. It was literally just because half the girls I know were starting to use she/they, I guess because they are artsy / bi / neurodivergent, but like..those things are not the same as gender. What happened to masculine women and feminine men? ( Obviously not talking about trans people here, just talking about people who seem to be co-opting (to use leftist terminology … appropriating? Lol) transness. Ugh. I just wish people could have these conversations in real life without being scared of losing their jobs or being cancelled. My dad lost his job as a college professor for simply stating that anyone can be racist. And who got him fired? Some white kid who was offended on behalf of… who? My brother is becoming a cop and the fact that I am supporting him and want him to be the best cop we can be (because like…we need good cops), that makes me a racist bigot? the more I learn about gender ideology and CRT the more uneasy I feel about it all…my intuition is saying no thank you!
It’s also so reminiscent of narcissist abuse. Denying people’s realities, shaming them, guilting them…it’s abuse.
Also I’m sick of hating white men. I spent enough energy “hating” them before I realized how unproductive and counterintuitive it is! We are trying to create a more unified and integrated society by literally segregating people based on illusive identities (that can change daily) that often aren’t based in any physical reality. Ugh!!!
Ok now I’m just rambling! What can I say guys, I can’t stop thinking about all this…
A lot of the problem stems from hubris. It's ok to want change but most change will have unintended consequences. Unless you have the humility to admit that your fundamental beliefs may be less than practical you will cause a lot of unnecessary harm when you refuse to make adjustments.
The other problem is that "liberals" seem intent on rewriting history to conform with their ideology. It's surprisingly unsophisticated. It's also dangerous because history is all we have to go on in most cases. You can't reduce complex chaotic systems such as societies to a simple formula. Good and bad doesn't even apply to history because morality is a property of individuals not groups. Even at the individual level you are still dealing with a complex chaotic system that is irreducible. "vengeance is mine says the lord"
Complex chaotic systems such as societies require a lot of forgiveness. The saying that "we don't hang horse thieves to punish them but to stop other people from stealing horses is worth considering". Judging people leads to a whole cascade of problems. Adopting an attitude of moral superiority is dangerous. It breaks down trust and cooperation necessary for civilization to function. Liberals are particularly ignorant of the value of these simple but fundamental traditions that make civilization workable. There is no such thing as forced cooperation and only voluntary cooperation is practical. Forced cooperation leads to whole new cascade of problems. Societies cannot be engineered they have to evolve and that takes patience.
I’ve become so confused by the “news” and “statistics” that I really don’t know what to believe.
"You just have to flood the public square with enough raw sewage; you just
have to raise enough questions; enough dirt; plant enough conspiracy theorizing
that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their
leaders, the mainstream media and political institutions; in each other; in the
possibility of truth - the game's won."
- Barack Hussein Obama. Address at Stanford University, April 21, 2022.
So you have reached the point where you "no longer know what to believe"?
The idea of liberal and conservative has bled into areas beyond politics and as noted by @Tim Tuolomne are no longer useful political terms.
The concept of our left-right political spectrum that has been foisted upon us is a big reason for a lot of our present day confusion. I know that statement will be immediately negated as too simplistic.
However, there have been at least a few attempts to make it more comprehensive and understandable to the average person. It's been expanded into different dimensions, aligning economic, social and governmental fields. It's been suggested it be circular in nature.
The most easily understood, and thus condemned or rejected for its simplicity, is one that is a true political dichotomy. Left and right are dichotomies that are politically expressed as liberalism and conservatism. A true "political" dichotomy goes from no government and progresses to total government. In other words, anarchy to totalitarianism, neither of which in my estimation, is desirable. Especially in the context of building a rational society or civilization.
The left-right political spectrum is, in my view, what is simplistic and also in error. It is obvious that no two totalitarian regimes can coexist in a common or proximate geographical location. One will always seek to dominate and destroy the other. It would illicit a period of constant war. Both right-wing and left-wing socialism are forms of totalitarianism. They are erroneously presented on our current political spectrum as opposites when in fact their objective is the same - total political control. This similarity of objective should place them very closely together on a political spectrum - not as opposites. There is no doubt they will be oppositional but they are not opposites. There similarities in goals preclude them from co-existing.
Anyway, Marxism, Maoism, communism, fascism, nazism, socialism, have similar goals and we can see that all will attempt to be dominant within their own geographical location. The Communist philosophy is international in its scope so it will force combining with other forms of socialism or upon destroying them.
Lots of good point here and I appreciate you taking the time. I learned a lot. But (correct me if I’m totally wrong) I believe that Obama quote was intended to warn about the consequences of spreading misinformation, not to endorse it.
@goodintentions Okay, You are totally wrong.
The Obama quote tells you how the game is won. Do you think he is not playing the game? Since he knows how the game is played, how is it possible he is not playing it? He is still busy building his legacy to this day and is a very active participant in politics. I would not be surprised if he forced his wife to run who is obviously reluctant to do so but just think of what an opportunity that would be for him.
There is another way to play the game and that is having clean hands and being truthful and honest with the public with no hidden agendas.
This is the level of his audacity. He will tell you exactly what is going on and because he does, well...of course, he is just warning you. He knows so well how the game is played but he is not a player? Give me a break!
Was he warning you when he said he would, if he could have, run a third term by proxy, you know, have an earpiece in the President's ear and tell him what to do. I'd be fine with that, he said.
Hillary was supposed to be that proxy and she would have been very willing. All she wanted to do was be the first woman (whatever that is. I don't know what to believe!) President of the US. Obama had enough dirt on her to totally control her; not that she would have balked at the Obama agenda at all. The people threw a monkey wrench into that plan and chose Trump whom they harassed for his four years in office with threats of impeachment, allegations of collusion with Russia and whatever they could throw at him.
Hillary didn't win the election because the Dems arrogantly thought Trump never had a chance. The late night shows were daring him to run and chuckling about it. Meanwhile the intel community was busy cleaning up Hillary's track record with James Comey absolving her of past indiscretions and ignoring her latest cover-ups so the public could feel at ease about her. Their mistake was in assuming they didn't have to weigh the scales a bit more than they did. Hillary was that bad of a choice for candidate.
In the end, they made sure they won the 2020 election by running a great candidate that had no possibility of failure, the very close buddy of Barack Obama and his former VP, Joseph Biden. Barack even stating that, Biden could find a way to F things up. What things, Barry?
We never did hear too much about who Barry Soetero, was did we?
You know I don't think Obama was a neo liberal. On occasion he would even defy the State Department. I also don't think he was a communist but he was a globalist in the sense that he didn't believe in nationalism. I think he thought of himself as someone free of cultural prejudices. He looked to Europe for inspiration on how a sophisticate person should think. He wanted to emulate the European model of a welfare state but with more emphasis on "decolonization".
@wolfhnd You're being too kind. I don't know what you mean by being a neo-liberal, these terms are so ill-defined but....
Obama lived in Indonesia for a good percentage of his youth and Inodnesia is about 85% Muslim. His father was Muslim so he had much experience with Islam. The thing is he was Black. He really didn't fit in with the demographics in Indonesia but his affinities are with Blacks and Islam, not whites and Christianity, which are majorities in America. He perceived America as being a racist and prejudiced place. His wife also felt that way. She wasn't proud of her country at all but she wasn't too experienced with Islam. They attended a Christian church with the "God Damn, America" Reverend Wright. Obama fell in with people like the revolutionary Bill Ayers and he was prepping to "fundamentally transform" America, getting into community activism where the socialists like to roam and activism involves interaction with the political process. He became a politician and was a shining light for the left. Republican conservatism would not bring about the changes he wanted in America. He equated conservatism with a preservation of the racism and prejudices in America and he wanted change now.
America was changing and always is changing on an evolutionary basis toward a "more perfect union". Obama is just impatient. His approach is very destructive and I might add rather deceitful.
He thought very little of Republicans because, after all, America was racist and prejudiced, that could not be conserved, it had to change. If America had been as racist as he thought he would never have been elected President. It was trying to leave its racist past and there were still traces of it in certain communities. The worst aspect of racism is that it is a collective term. The generality of the term makes it invalid in human interaction. All Whites do not hate all Blacks nor vice versa. Races however, do not hold opinions only individuals do. If racism exists it is because individuals agree it should. All races have interacted enough that we are familiar with each other. As individuals, we fear unknowns. Familiarity, with each other allays fears that we initially hold. They don't instantly disappear though. Trust has to be built to replace those fears. The Hatfield and McCoy feud went on for a hundred years until two individuals from the two clans fell in love and the feud ended.
Suffice it to say, the term racism is used today for political purposes only. It stokes division. Republicans are racist - an untrue generality. Democrats love everyone - an untrue generality.
We must stop thinking in terms of generalities, that is in collective terms, and think in terms of the individual. If one group hates another group it is of some individuals design. There may be some validity initially but it is not familiarity that breeds contempt. Hate is not a norm in our nature. It is a mostly reactive response to an immediate threat, when the threat disappears so does the hate.
The Democrats and Republicans are not supposed to hate each other but lately one party has been labeling the other party as a threat to the nation, a threat to democracy. They are supposed to be racist and homophobic and Islamophobic, and to be feared. You can guess which one stokes the fear.
I can't say Obama doesn't have good intentions. If he didn't he would not be able to accomplish what he has. He is just wrong about his approach. Someone who doesn't have good intentions is the likes of George Soros which Obama is in league with.
A sad state of affairs.
Absolutely. I don't like the man. I see him as a really confused man trying to cope with the abandonment by his father and his crazy hippy mother. He was an easy target for those who have radical ideas about transforming America in part because he is half black which adds to his confusion. He made a perfect politician to carry the radical liberal agenda forward because he has no identity that you can pin down.
Is there not a place for those of us who live by the code - don't start any sh!t and there won't be any. (?) Those who also believe in fiscal responsibility and transparency - those of us who believe that the only true freedom is in the form of personal autonomy? The supremacy of the individual over the group identity? The necessary and just (fairness) of profit motive? Those who believe that free market dynamics is the only true and fair arbiter of economics and that it has the greatest potential for prosperity?
Former classical liberal / former libertarian, turned far-right Southern extremist.
I allowed myself to admit that equity is a lie, democratic institutions always move left, and in America, liberalism will always become Progressive. Liberalism is an ideology cum religious institution, and any such establishment that isn't explicitly right-wing will eventually be infiltrated by activist malcontents and worn as a skinsuit by left-wing oligarchs.
Everything I thought I knew at 25 had proven a lie by the time I was around 40.
Liberal and conservative are not useful terms because most of the public does not have any idea what are their definitions, nor understand the obfuscations. Those terms are both smokescreens used by anti-Constitutionalists to mislead the public.
The Constitution is based on true classical liberal concepts (LIBERty for ALL), not at all today's version of "liberal," which means anti-Constitutional.
Constitutionalists are true Republicans. Anti-Constitutionalists are RINOs, Democrats and Marxists.
The Democrat Party is a corrupt dynasty in the US. Our Founding Fathers envisioned the citizen statesman who would retire after serving the nation, not career politicians more concerned about manipulating the system for more power for themselves and their buddies.
Democrats could have declared themselves defenders of the Constitution at any time since their founding in 1828, but they never did. Many Democrats, like Obama, have voiced their view that the Constitution limits the government too much. The fact that it would make the country like every other government in the World, and the US not the US, does not seem to bother them.
The US Constitution asserts that our rights do not come from the government. We just have them, and the government has no right to abridge them. And it calls for three competing lobes of government which can't collude against the people.
Lincoln founded the Republican Party in 1854 specifically to defend the Constitution, and suddenly the Democrats were in danger of being seen as who they always were. They had no choice but to try to slander Republicans and hide behind white hoods so they would not be identified as those intimidating former slaves from voting Republican.
Democrat voters may have realized that they were supporting crooks all along, but in those days losing face over bad choices often made them publicly dishonest, so they were willing to support Democrat leadership slander of Republicans. That continues to this day.
The dupes of Marxism and their sympathizers are also about power, and disposing the Constitution, so they are natural partners with the Democrats in slandering Republicans, and doing their best to slip everything they can past the voters to compromise the Constitution.
Americans, often weary of politics, have been complicit by not really paying attention when FDR illegally coerced the Supreme Court to abandon the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in Wickard v Filburn in 1942, beginning Soviet style Central Planning, telling farmers what they could and could not grow, and morphing into every vast unaccountable Federal agency today. When Democrats passed the LRRA in 1983 which "regulated" the insurance industry, they drove 276 insurance companies out of business, quadrupling insurance rates overnight and setting the stage for bamboozling the public to accept unConstitutional Obamacare. And there were hundreds of other cuts to the Constitution.
Democrats and the dupes of Marxism and their sympathizers have always been about deception, corruption, theft of legislative funds to steal elections, slander of Republicans, and destruction of the Constitution by installing Deep State operatives cutting across all three lobes of government, making collusion against the people now possible.
Anyone with any sense will now see the destruction of our society at their hands, will have questions about how the FBI, Department of State, CIA and Department of Justice have been operating, and know that they must vote out every single Democrat and Marxist with prejudice to begin to restore our nation.
I would say that I lean more libertarian than liberal. I am absolutely fed up with the left, but I’m also fed up with republicans.
Yep, me too. Feeling more and more like a progressive leaning centrist with classically liberal values.
Also just want to add that one of my best friends is a trans woman and I’m not questioning her womanhood. But I do think it’s harmful to conflate biological sex with gender identity and expression. I mean, by doing that, aren’t we invalidating transness by saying it’s no different than cisness? That completely erases the experiences that come exclusively from being a trans person. Why is it a bad thing to acknowledge this reality?
Posted by fthemediaI noticed with people who want to be the opposite sex as a trend or way of escape are mostly young girls aged 13-16, gay women with internalized homophobia, gay men with internalized homophobia, ...
Posted by fthemediaIs is horrible and sad that we live in a day and age where mental disorders are trendy and being a majority is demonized by the far left.
Posted by fthemediaThis 100% many don't and just want to share there story
Posted by fthemediaIt's like we are living in a irl cringe comp.
Posted by fthemediaWelcome to incel central. Free ignorance!
Posted by TheHerrDarkThat sounds about right
Posted by Caseyxsharp2I don't know what happened to the comments that I was making before on my other post.
Posted by Caseyxsharp2I don't know what happened to the comments that I was making before on my other post.
Posted by Caseyxsharp2I don't know what happened to the comments that I was making before on my other post.
Posted by NaomiShould there be legal restrictions on trans athletes competing in schools?
Posted by Naomi"Super Bi", “Super Gay”, “Super Lesbian”... So, is there anything wrong with "Super Straight"? Are you offended by the term?
Posted by ariellescarcellaHow do we feel about this? "Men and the rest" Why do men get the "safe space" toilet when they are not the ones who generally at risk?
Posted by AtitayaWoah. This is beyond madness. 😂😂 “There’s a lot to unpack here.”
Posted by TheHerrDarkSince you are an expert, Doesn't this ad look like a woman taking her top off? Did the Oculus design and marketing team really go there?
Posted by TheHerrDarkRemember when the leftist said Trump would shake Hitler's hand?
Posted by ariellescarcellaMen in dresses. Good, bad? Who cares?
Well we disagree there but hey life your life! That’s the point of this country right ?