Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I hate those goddam liberals grrrr!

OK folks. I know its not actually a question but then neither is anything else on the politics section today. I think we need to raise the political discourse level a tiny bit.

Why not talk to people and engage with their ideas? You might disagree with their ideas and you can say so.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
One of the biggest impediments I've found is that the language is diverging and we're unable to agree on basic terms. Pretty simple terms like racism, socialism, and privilege are completely redefined according to your political bent.

It may be worth trying to discuss without using what are basically politicized buzzwords now because they're emotional hair-triggers that just lead nowhere useful.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@CountScrofula Yes. There is even Conservapedia and RationalWiki now. I'm a pedant for classical political definitions as once were commonly agreed. Problem is that language is power and it's a current through which ideologies run through. If you can change the language (or establish an alternative set of definitions - a-la as the US right have) then a constructive debate is literally impossible. How do you convince someone of a leftist idea when leftism means Stalinism? If Hitler was a socialist, then how can a free-market thinker possibly have fascistic tendencies? All things different to nationalism can be collapsed under the heading 'globalist' so that there is essentially no political difference between myself and John McCain.

The term 'classical liberal' is highly debased too. We both know what it means under traditional terms but it has been taken up by Jordan Peterson (a weird Burkean Conservative with authoritarian tendencies) and some in the alt-right.

I feel like I have to defend nuance before I even get into a debate about issues.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@Burnley123 Right, when it's us vs them, 'them' is a homogenous whole.

And the globalist thing is interesting because the left (such as it is) has been talking about neo-liberalism for couple decades now which is basically describing the same phenomenon. The difference is neo-liberalism talks about a political trend in major corporations, western governments, and entities like world bank. Globalism describes a heinous conspiracy theory.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@CountScrofula Ironically Marx is key to both understandings of globalisation. The right's cultual marxist conspiracy (whilst silly and non-theoretical) has has more in common - of itself - with an actual Marxist understanding than any of these people realise. At least in the sense that Cultural Marxism sees an elitist takeover of the world happening against the interests of ordinary people. Marxist class analysis sees something similar but with economic agency rather than the bonkers personal agency of bad (Jewish?) liberal people scheming and moving pieces on the chess board.

It's an effective conspiracy because it distracts from the real causes by creating a different (though necessarily overlapping) critique of neo-liberalism which is less hostile to the interests of capital and relates to the cultural sentiments of the right. I'm sure you know about the history too and I really do see an emerging fascist movement within the American right. Some parts of continental Europe are already there.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@Burnley123 Right. It goes hand in hand with the notion that corporations are not entities with political interests and need to be left alone to just let the system work.

Which is weird when you think about it considering Trump ran on the idea that he was not beholden to corporate interests.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others.“ Groucho Marx

[image deleted]
@Burnley123
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@jackjjackson I'll never join a club that would have me as a member