Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[d4m10n]

But none of the Centrist/Right Wingers had that after the Nomination.

I'd respond to this with a few obvious counterexamples, but then we'd be talking about centrists and rightists who probably do not claim to have the liberal mindset.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Even Republicans claiming not to be supporting Trump nevertheless vote the Party line 90%+ of the time.
They had the constitutional duty to impeach him, and they didn't, instead covering and covering up for him.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think there is an element of small c conservativism to the centrist positions. A lot of "hey wait a minute lets try a little of that first and see how it works out before we go full radical change."

That's not "conservative". That's responsible.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I have learned from this thread is that the right cannot understand the "liberal mindset" because they cannot even define it.

What I've learned is that liberals can't define their own mindset, and the handful of independents here are hopelessly lost about it.

Nobody in this thread can rationally be considered "right". Unfortunately, I have no control over the irrationality of others.

 

[plague311]

Are we still in the social issues forum? The left has prevailed on almost all the issues under contention back when Bill Clinton was facing off against George H.W. Bush, with the rather glaring exception of abortion which has been moved down to the state level.

So over the last 25 years the US has managed to reach the basic level of not being complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ to people? That's awesome. Should we go over how many things the right has accomplished on their list over the last few years? The list is about as impressive as the *counts* 3 things you're bringing up here in support of your "the liberals are getting everything they want!" list.

We now have nearly all the things which the Buchananist kulturkämpfers dreaded back then, such as legally married gays openly serving in the military,

Yes, if we pigeon hole it all of the way down to "legally married gays" then, sure. How about transgender folk? They having a pretty good time in the military? The ability to marry for gay folk is also going to be contested. Several states are trying to do with it the same thing they did with abortion, and there's a good chance it will succeed. I'm not sure what flex you thought this was but we have people in charge of the military, right now, that are trying to roll this ◊◊◊◊ back.

diversity experts embedded in corporate HR,

Lol wut? No there ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ aren't. The first thing that happened when Trump rolled into office was most major companies rolled all of that stuff back. Target, Wal-Mart, Meta, Tractor Supply, Pepsi, Lowe's, Harley, John Deere and the list goes on, have all either drastically rolled back DEI projects or eliminated them completely.

sensitivity trainings and speech codes on college campuses,

Again, there are multiple colleges that have either had to eliminate DEI\Sensitivity\Speech codes or dramatically roll them back to the point they aren't effective, or face either federal funding cuts or harassment by the government.

etc.

All of the ◊◊◊◊ you listed is either blatantly wrong, or was accurate up to, at best, 5 years ago.

When was the left ever asked to meet the right halfway on any of this stuff?

This is the absolutely dumbest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ attempt at providing a basis for your argument ever. The DEI stuff was private business, why the ◊◊◊◊ would, or should, "the left" have to meet anyone in the middle of a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing for it? Then we move on to gay marriage.

Your question is why didn't the left have to meet the right on gay marriage? As mentioned, how the ◊◊◊◊ would they? Your stupid "civil union" nonsense? Where would the compromise be? Saying that "the gays" can only have their marriage be called a civil union rather than marriage? So you're upset that government didn't get the chance to dictate who gets to be religious and how they apply it?

This whole thing is asinine. The right, on the other hand, has rolled back dozens of protections for all sorts of people and, if you haven't noticed, are literally ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ deporting people who have a legal right to be here....oh but you want to bitch and moan that the right isn't being met halfway? You're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ adorable, my guy. A real riot.

 

[d4m10n]

You're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ adorable, my guy. A real riot.

This ◊◊◊◊ right here is why I'm not going to even bother with a point-by-point reply.

If you cannot address my points without making it personal, don't bother.

 

[42gerg]

This ◊◊◊◊ right here is why I'm not going to even bother with a point-by-point reply.

If you cannot address my points without making it personal, don't bother.

i responded to those points in post #1,161 without making it personal . Feel free to respond that post instead.

 

[plague311]

This ◊◊◊◊ right here is why I'm not going to even bother with a point-by-point reply.

If you cannot address my points without making it personal, don't bother.

I don't give two ◊◊◊◊◊ if you reply to my posts or not. If you can't handle some back-and-forth then the same goes for you. Feel free to ignore me and never reply to anything I say again. I hate to tell you, but half the time I don't even look at who is posting. I just reply to the content of the posts, so acting like it's "personal", when most of the time I don't look, is the definition of you taking it personal.

Like I said, the ignore button is on every one of my posts. Feel free to use it and watch how much I give a ◊◊◊◊. Bye, Felicia.

 

[ahhell]

I'd respond to this with a few obvious counterexamples, but then we'd be talking about centrists and rightists who probably do not claim to have the liberal mindset.

Depends what you mean by liberal. If you mean classical liberalism there are both centrists and conservatives who would be happy to be called liberal. If we mean progressive or leftist, then you'd be hard pressed to find either claiming to be either progressives or leftists.

That's not "conservative". That's responsible.

Conservatives would agree with you.

 

[d4m10n]

So is there anything legally different between a civil union and marriage?

In terms of substantive legal rights, no. The issue being contested was the social construction of marriage though, not merely a bundle of legal rights and duties. You asked "How would the left actually meet the right halfway on gay marriage?" and I gave you a salient example of how they actually did.

So how long was that step supposed to last?

Until the next time the Democratic Party had the power to move the ball forward, one must presume.

If social issues like these are solved without needing the government to intervene, then why get the government involved now?

I need you to be more specific about the issue being solved and who got the government involved.

 

[d4m10n]

Like I said, the ignore button is on every on[e] of my posts.

Done.

 

[d4m10n]

Depends what you mean by liberal.

I was addressing the counterfactual claim from #1,178 that no one right-of-center had the guts to oppose Trump "after the Nomination" and I think it would be fair to say that the Republicans who did oppose Trump did so out of dedication to certain fundamental values cherished by enlightenment liberals.

 

[plague311]

Done.

Thank God, but this isn't an airport. You don't have to announce your departure.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Conservatives would agree with you.

Anyone with normal executive function ought to agree with me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thank God, but this isn't an airport. You don't have to announce your departure.

You don't have to vent your spleen so regularly either... but that sure doesn't seem to slow you down any

 

[Steve]

Three Core Principles of Liberalism (according to Adrian Wooldridge; Google AI summary fact checked by @d4m10n )

Individualism: Treating the individual as the basic building block of society, focused on self-improvement rather than mere consumerism.

Constraints on Power: Enforcing strict limits on political and private power through constitutions and individual rights.

Skepticism About Ultimate Truths: Rejecting the imposition of collective moral, religious, or ideological dogma, and instead protecting pluralism and open debate.

That being the case, and given that this thread is well over 1,000 posts, why do right wingers have such a difficult time understanding such simple ideas? Not stupidity, I suspect, so willful ignorance or......?

 

[Trausti]

That being the case, and given that this thread is well over 1,000 posts, why do right wingers have such a difficult time understanding such simple ideas? Not stupidity, I suspect, so willful ignorance or......?

Those are essentially conservative ideas. A liberal 30 years ago would be a conservative today.

 

[Steve]

Those are essentially conservative ideas. A liberal 30 years ago would be a conservative today.

Ok your turn. Define liberalism.

 

[Trausti]

Ok your turn. Define liberalism.

I'm just noting that individualism, limited government, and open debate are now kind of right coded. The "warmth of collectivism" is anathema to individualism.

 

[Steve]

I'm just noting that individualism, limited government, and open debate are now kind of right coded. The "warmth of collectivism" is anathema to individualism.

Accepted that you cannot define a thing that you are never reluctant to criticise.