No, No, Don't Worry. Racism is Pretty Much Over.

[Kory]

Is this that doctor friend of yours?

No, that guy claims to be a communist, although it's clear he doesn't care about other people very much. This is my microbiologist friend.

Moral: don't trust people in the sciences.

[Kory]

I'll just suggest that if your friend only considers statistical evidence valid, he isn't that open-minded. Which isn't to say that qualitative evidence is the here-all and be-all—a blend is almost always the best—but that a reliance on quantitative evidence is an eager abstraction of human experience that actively seeks to remove human beings from the story. Whenever I encounter stat people, I think of a speech Robert Kennedy gave in 1968 in which he rejected our reliance on statistics to tell the whole story:

Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.

It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

Well, he IS a conservative libertarian. I just mean that he's interested in discussing opposing viewpoints (and seems swayable) without flying off the handle like so many of them do. He seems to be a little caught up in the fact that he wants to be able to discuss statistics with people but thinks he'll be totally shut down by "the left" and fears the oncoming cultural tyranny of "the left" that enforces silence (or firing you from your job) if you disagree. I think he's not paying attention to how social movements work. I could certainly cite the McCarthy era and see what he thinks of that. He says that he sees much more venom, threat, and lack of understanding of their own motivations on the left than he does on the right, which totally gives power to my theory that he's looking for stuff that satisfies what he already thinks. In addition to statistical analysis, he also cites interviews taken at BLM protests and the inability for the interviewees to express why they're there as ammo for himself, but I reminded him how easily that shit can be cherry-picked and edited. The right aren't going to show the eloquent interviews, are they?

[Dr. Medulla]

Well, he IS a conservative libertarian. I just mean that he's interested in discussing opposing viewpoints (and seems swayable) without flying off the handle like so many of them do. He seems to be a little caught up in the fact that he wants to be able to discuss statistics with people but thinks he'll be totally shut down by "the left" and fears the oncoming cultural tyranny of "the left" that enforces silence (or firing you from your job) if you disagree. I think he's not paying attention to how social movements work. I could certainly cite the McCarthy era and see what he thinks of that. He says that he sees much more venom, threat, and lack of understanding of their own motivations on the left than he does on the right, which totally gives power to my theory that he's looking for stuff that satisfies what he already thinks. In addition to statistical analysis, he also cites interviews taken at BLM protests and the inability for the interviewees to express why they're there as ammo for himself, but I reminded him how easily that shit can be cherry-picked and edited. The right aren't going to show the eloquent interviews, are they?

It's kinda fascinating how pessimistic conservatives are. By nature they should be—Reagan conservatism is fla-out weird from a larger historical sense—but they've become more and more apocalyptic. It's telling that conversations with people on the right tend to be more about how they are victimized by the left (by which they actually mean the centre but it sounds better to paint all non-conservatives as "far left") than the virtues of their own principles. It wasn't always like that. In the 70s and 80s, conservatives put forward arguments about why their perspective was superior, but that's long past. They've decided to play defence, whether out of a genuine sense that the tide is turning and/or they aren't producing any serious proponents of their values. Conservatism has largely devolved into anti-liberalism/anti-socialism without an actual critique behind it, just fearmongering.

[Kory]

Well, he IS a conservative libertarian. I just mean that he's interested in discussing opposing viewpoints (and seems swayable) without flying off the handle like so many of them do. He seems to be a little caught up in the fact that he wants to be able to discuss statistics with people but thinks he'll be totally shut down by "the left" and fears the oncoming cultural tyranny of "the left" that enforces silence (or firing you from your job) if you disagree. I think he's not paying attention to how social movements work. I could certainly cite the McCarthy era and see what he thinks of that. He says that he sees much more venom, threat, and lack of understanding of their own motivations on the left than he does on the right, which totally gives power to my theory that he's looking for stuff that satisfies what he already thinks. In addition to statistical analysis, he also cites interviews taken at BLM protests and the inability for the interviewees to express why they're there as ammo for himself, but I reminded him how easily that shit can be cherry-picked and edited. The right aren't going to show the eloquent interviews, are they?

It's kinda fascinating how pessimistic conservatives are. By nature they should be—Reagan conservatism is fla-out weird from a larger historical sense—but they've become more and more apocalyptic. It's telling that conversations with people on the right tend to be more about how they are victimized by the left (by which they actually mean the centre but it sounds better to paint all non-conservatives as "far left") than the virtues of their own principles. It wasn't always like that. In the 70s and 80s, conservatives put forward arguments about why their perspective was superior, but that's long past. They've decided to play defence, whether out of a genuine sense that the tide is turning and/or they aren't producing any serious proponents of their values. Conservatism has largely devolved into anti-liberalism/anti-socialism without an actual critique behind it, just fearmongering.

Indeed, "owning the libs" really seems to be the party followers' only platform at this point, which totally explains why Trump can do literally anything and they don't care. As long as it pisses off the libs, then it's a win.

Funnily enough, we started talking about how we're in a lot of this mess right now because of how the rural poor have been ignored, dumped on, etc. and he was quite literally astounded that I took that viewpoint, being as I am, on "the left." In his experience, "the left" see themselves in a superior position over the rural poor, especially in the south. It became completely clear at that point that he was conflating liberals and leftists, and that, as you mentioned before, his statistics wouldn't account for that and are giving him a skewed vision of the country (not that liberals aren't a big part of it).

[Dr. Medulla]

Funnily enough, we started talking about how we're in a lot of this mess right now because of how the rural poor have been ignored, dumped on, etc. and he was quite literally astounded that I took that viewpoint, being as I am, on "the left." In his experience, "the left" see themselves in a superior position over the rural poor, especially in the south. It became completely clear at that point that he was conflating liberals and leftists, and that, as you mentioned before, his statistics wouldn't account for that and are giving him a skewed vision of the country (not that liberals aren't a big part of it).

It annoys me to no end that so many—not just on the right—conflate liberal and left. They're both to the left of the right, but that's it. It makes as much sense as leftists who lump liberals and conservatives as the right. There is a centre. On a whole shitload of issues, the centre sides with the right, but to that crude and defensive conservative mindset, they're all Trotskyites.

[Kory]

Funnily enough, we started talking about how we're in a lot of this mess right now because of how the rural poor have been ignored, dumped on, etc. and he was quite literally astounded that I took that viewpoint, being as I am, on "the left." In his experience, "the left" see themselves in a superior position over the rural poor, especially in the south. It became completely clear at that point that he was conflating liberals and leftists, and that, as you mentioned before, his statistics wouldn't account for that and are giving him a skewed vision of the country (not that liberals aren't a big part of it).

It annoys me to no end that so many—not just on the right—conflate liberal and left. They're both to the left of the right, but that's it. It makes as much sense as leftists who lump liberals and conservatives as the right. There is a centre. On a whole shitload of issues, the centre sides with the right, but to that crude and defensive conservative mindset, they're all Trotskyites.

Propaganda is powerful as hell, there's no denying that. I don't recall that kind of categorization before Obama. And they called Obama a Nazi (well, the LaRouchies did, anyway)!

[Dr. Medulla]

Funnily enough, we started talking about how we're in a lot of this mess right now because of how the rural poor have been ignored, dumped on, etc. and he was quite literally astounded that I took that viewpoint, being as I am, on "the left." In his experience, "the left" see themselves in a superior position over the rural poor, especially in the south. It became completely clear at that point that he was conflating liberals and leftists, and that, as you mentioned before, his statistics wouldn't account for that and are giving him a skewed vision of the country (not that liberals aren't a big part of it).

It annoys me to no end that so many—not just on the right—conflate liberal and left. They're both to the left of the right, but that's it. It makes as much sense as leftists who lump liberals and conservatives as the right. There is a centre. On a whole shitload of issues, the centre sides with the right, but to that crude and defensive conservative mindset, they're all Trotskyites.

Propaganda is powerful as hell, there's no denying that. I don't recall that kind of categorization before Obama. And they called Obama a Nazi (well, the LaRouchies did, anyway)!

Well, conservatives have tagged liberals with being leftists since FDR's time (but at that time the idea had a bit more merit), but for our time it really kicked in with Clinton. He and Hillary were New Left counter-cultural radicals and all that, determined to destroy families and decency. Since then, every Democrat running for president is "the most left-wing ever." I've even some people call Biden a far left radical. It's a good way to know when to put someone on Ignore.

[JennyB]

Funnily enough, we started talking about how we're in a lot of this mess right now because of how the rural poor have been ignored, dumped on, etc. and he was quite literally astounded that I took that viewpoint, being as I am, on "the left." In his experience, "the left" see themselves in a superior position over the rural poor, especially in the south. It became completely clear at that point that he was conflating liberals and leftists, and that, as you mentioned before, his statistics wouldn't account for that and are giving him a skewed vision of the country (not that liberals aren't a big part of it).

It annoys me to no end that so many—not just on the right—conflate liberal and left. They're both to the left of the right, but that's it. It makes as much sense as leftists who lump liberals and conservatives as the right. There is a centre. On a whole shitload of issues, the centre sides with the right, but to that crude and defensive conservative mindset, they're all Trotskyites.

Propaganda is powerful as hell, there's no denying that. I don't recall that kind of categorization before Obama. And they called Obama a Nazi (well, the LaRouchies did, anyway)!

Well, conservatives have tagged liberals with being leftists since FDR's time (but at that time the idea had a bit more merit), but for our time it really kicked in with Clinton. He and Hillary were New Left counter-cultural radicals and all that, determined to destroy families and decency. Since then, every Democrat running for president is "the most left-wing ever." I've even some people call Biden a far left radical. It's a good way to know when to put someone on Ignore.

And Dukakis, too. The card carrying member of the ACLU and extremist liberal.

[revbob]

Funnily enough, we started talking about how we're in a lot of this mess right now because of how the rural poor have been ignored, dumped on, etc. and he was quite literally astounded that I took that viewpoint, being as I am, on "the left." In his experience, "the left" see themselves in a superior position over the rural poor, especially in the south. It became completely clear at that point that he was conflating liberals and leftists, and that, as you mentioned before, his statistics wouldn't account for that and are giving him a skewed vision of the country (not that liberals aren't a big part of it).

It annoys me to no end that so many—not just on the right—conflate liberal and left. They're both to the left of the right, but that's it. It makes as much sense as leftists who lump liberals and conservatives as the right. There is a centre. On a whole shitload of issues, the centre sides with the right, but to that crude and defensive conservative mindset, they're all Trotskyites.

Propaganda is powerful as hell, there's no denying that. I don't recall that kind of categorization before Obama. And they called Obama a Nazi (well, the LaRouchies did, anyway)!

Well, conservatives have tagged liberals with being leftists since FDR's time (but at that time the idea had a bit more merit), but for our time it really kicked in with Clinton. He and Hillary were New Left counter-cultural radicals and all that, determined to destroy families and decency. Since then, every Democrat running for president is "the most left-wing ever." I've even some people call Biden a far left radical. It's a good way to know when to put someone on Ignore.

And Dukakis, too. The card carrying member of the ACLU and extremist liberal.

Which led to him doing the tank thing.

But that was the first time I really recall the term liberal being used as a derogatory epithet. During the lead up to the 1988 election.

[JennyB]

It annoys me to no end that so many—not just on the right—conflate liberal and left. They're both to the left of the right, but that's it. It makes as much sense as leftists who lump liberals and conservatives as the right. There is a centre. On a whole shitload of issues, the centre sides with the right, but to that crude and defensive conservative mindset, they're all Trotskyites.

Propaganda is powerful as hell, there's no denying that. I don't recall that kind of categorization before Obama. And they called Obama a Nazi (well, the LaRouchies did, anyway)!

Well, conservatives have tagged liberals with being leftists since FDR's time (but at that time the idea had a bit more merit), but for our time it really kicked in with Clinton. He and Hillary were New Left counter-cultural radicals and all that, determined to destroy families and decency. Since then, every Democrat running for president is "the most left-wing ever." I've even some people call Biden a far left radical. It's a good way to know when to put someone on Ignore.

And Dukakis, too. The card carrying member of the ACLU and extremist liberal.

Which led to him doing the tank thing.

But that was the first time I really recall the term liberal being used as a derogatory epithet. During the lead up to the 1988 election.

Same.

[matedog]

Excuse my ignorance by are liberalism and lIbertarianism the same? Trying to catch up with the previous discussions and realized I often conflate liberal and left myself.

[revbob]

Excuse my ignorance by are liberalism and lIbertarianism the same? Trying to catch up with the previous discussions and realized I often conflate liberal and left myself.

No not the same. Doc can give you the scholarly version but Libertarians in my experience are just Republicans who want legalized drugs.

I would say Liberals are center left on the spectrum, more prone to be supportive of the system and likely to flee to the center when the heat is on. .I feel in some ways the term liberal became further tainted by Republicans starting in the 80s but then Love Me I'm a Liberal was written In the 60s so there was already some animosity from the left too.

[Silent Majority]

Sadly libertarian has been pretty much robbed by right wingers who love guns but hate abortions, but there is a proud left-libertarian tradition, of which anarchism fits comfortably somewhere on a Venn diagram. When people were looking to the Soviet Union as a bulwark against American imperialism, it was left libertarians and their concern for individual liberty (as opposed to sacrificing actual freedoms today for some imaginary tomorrow) who provided an antidote. Malatesta was anticipating all the issues with Marxism-Leninism 27 years before Russian Revolution.

Liberal has ways been something of a dirty word to people on the genuine left since it was first coined. Karl Marx's socialist predecessors would have seen them as essentially Conservative, a foe who will hamper and compromise rather than work for a better world, and that's an attitude that Martin Luther King and others concerned with economic and social justice would have agreed with in the sixties.

[Dr. Medulla]

Beyond what was said, libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism, with its emphasis on the individual as the fundamental unit of society (as opposed to, say, family or race). Liberalism has a fundamentally pessimistic view of human beings—we're selfish, covetous, and corruptible—so society is best organized to empower each person so as to check each other's corruption. The laws are such to allow freedom of each individual up to the point of harming other people's interests.

What we think of as liberalism still accepts this premise, but liberals also argue that the conditions that made classical liberalism viable have been permanently altered by industrialization, urbanization, complex technology, and mobility/cultural diversity. Societies have become so complex because of these developments that the limited role of government to protect property and people from each other would allow for concentrations of wealth and power that would infringe on others' liberty, leading to private tyranny as some individuals/organizations would disproportionately control resources. This would impoverish the vast majority and encourage violence and strife, and perhaps revolution of the kind that socialists and fascists argue for. So modern liberalism sees a more activist role for government to restrict some behaviours and encourage others so as to better preserve individual liberties.

Libertarians reject that as a false compromise—reducing liberty cannot protect liberty—but, more so, because human beings are corrupt, empowering government to infringe on our liberty will only encourage those humans working government's power to infringe more and more on individual liberty, eventually leading to tyranny (again, of the kind socialists and fascists argue for). So, regardless of changing environments, libertarians say roll the dice and count on the human desire for freedom to check impulses to tyranny.

That's the boiled down version, anyway. Application of the ideals is always messier and hypocritical (because, as liberalism says, humans are fundamentally corrupt).

[matedog]

I’m still unclear about liberals faith in the free market. I assumed Obama/bidencare would be a liberal ideal as it is rooted in the free market vs sanders/warren leftist (synonymous with socialist?) government run healthcare. But your post above seems to suggest otherwise.