"Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’"

[JohnG]

I've rarely encountered the illiberal, ultra-PC etc left. But I've encountered plenty of alt-right types who rail against it. I think the former is mostly the latter's bogeyman; fabricated to distract from the failings of neoliberalism.

..as others have said.

That said, centre-left mainstream parties do sometimes seem more concerned with identity politics than the failings of neoliberalism.

But what are these identities? Are we talking race? Gender? Class?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's not the quantity of voices that needs to be changed, it's their relationship to authoritarian power and its oppressive functions.

I can agree with that somewhat. There should not be uneven power or oppressive functions on speech. The person arguing X should not be able to oppress and silence by fiat the person arguing Y.

Censorship to protect the entrenched and ill-gotten wealth of the minority is one thing, and I oppose it, but speech that harms those who are already victims of this exploitation and oppression doesn't get to hijack the communications infrastructure made possible by the very people they are harming. We can simply say no to them, without giving them time to argue their case because they don't have one; we know this, we know what they want, and it's already settled that it's bad and not worth listening to.

It isn't as black and white as I think you are making it out to be. People push to expand what you are calling minority who are entrenched with ill-gotten wealth, and also to expand what you are calling victims of this exploitation. Censorship is power. If you are censoring one side, even if you dress it up as being the powerful side with ill-gotten gains, they are the ones being oppressed by this action. The better course is to oppress nobody, even out opportunities to be heard, with things like speaker's corners, public funding of elections rather than unlimited money, etc.

Those are synonyms, I hate to be the one to break it to you.

They are not. And it alarms me that you say they are. White nationalists buy into identity politics and want the best for white people, including a country separate for them and them alone, or with a majority of them, like the Japanese have for Japanese people, or the Jews aim to have in Israel. They need not be violent to be white nationalist. They need not be white supremacist to be white nationalist either. They only need to believe that white people and non-white people aren't compatible, or want to have their race control the land they live in. Its racist, yes, but it isn't necessarily Nazi or even white supremacist. It is prejudice to demand otherwise.

There's no need to needlessly escalate to lethal force if violent resistance will do the trick.

But will it? Or will it just further entrench them and radicalize them as you show them that violence is necessary to defend themselves from you?

The point is not to wipe them out through genocide

Why not?

it's to create the expectation that their ideas are not welcome in society.

That can be done without violence.

We need a unified, organized, ruthless contrary force to positively demolish the foundations of everything Richard Spencer stands for, and if there is a way to do that effectively without much violence I'm all for it, but the longer we wait the harder that becomes.

Why do you think violence makes it easier to do? I think violence makes it harder to do.

My problem with liberals is they do not even see this need. They imagine that, like in a free market, people will just naturally disagree with people like Spencer and thus he will lose his platform and incite less violence as the invisible hand sweeps him into the dustbin of public discourse. Speech doesn't work like that when money = volume. The degree to which the voices of those in the upper crust has been unduly amplified, far beyond what someone working 60 hours a week could ever hope for, means unconditional free speech is actually a mechanism for increasing inequality and preserving power imbalances that serve the rich.

As I wrote above, we need to get speech more level. BTW, are you equating the rich with the white supremacists and racists here? The reverse is often true. The rich these days care far less about race, and far more about money and power. When they use race, they use it to divide the poor so they can stay rich.

In the 60s, 70s, and 80s kids were protesting FOR free speech, not against it. Somehow it got turned around.

Everything to do with power and who has it. As long as there is a segment of people who do nothing and own everything, it will be in their interest to silence the majority they depend on for their wealth. This should be fought at all costs. However, when the same cabal turns around and starts using their massive overblown media empire to attempt to brainwash us into thinking they've got our best interests at heart, when what they're actually saying is to wipe out people because of their race, sexual orientation, or religion, it would be unreasonable to allow them to speak as if we were all evaluating their suggestions for the first time on a pure, blank backdrop.

They are using those social issues as a distraction, so they can maintain their wealth and distract people from coming after their unjust wealth and power.

It comes down to the difference between the liberal idea of freedom (everybody does whatever they want individually by default, and society's job is to manage the intersections between conflicting wants) and the idea of social freedom (nobody has any freedom without everybody else, and it is only through cooperation and mutual support that any individual gains freedom). The liberal conception is not very old, believe it or not, but it is often assumed to be the natural, obvious one. As if the tens of millennia of basically egalitarian social organization in the families and tribes of our ancestors was the exception, and the system invented by the winners of feudalism's collapse a few centuries ago is how humans are programmed to operate from birth.

This sounds like individualism vs collectivism, or freedom vs group conformity and groupthink.

Historically, most human societies haven't had much freedom at all. They have mostly be dominated by despots, kings, emperors, chieftans etc in a top down heirarchy dominated by the rich and powerful.

 

[untermensche]

How can you call yourself a liberal and be fine with letting a monster like Saddam stay in power?

This is the absolute immorality of those who supported this massive atrocity.

It was not just Hussein who was harmed.

We attacked and killed totally innocent people.

We terrorized millions of totally innocent people.

We left people without electricity and clean water for years.

Those that justify attacking and killing and torturing and raping the innocent have no morality.

They should be shunned from society.

 

[ZiprHead]

Will you be taking point against the next dictator? There's plenty of them out there to choose from.

Sure. If there's opportunity for it. I have several friends who went and volunteered for service.

"I have friends..." Sounds a little like stolen valor to me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Will you be taking point against the next dictator? There's plenty of them out there to choose from.

Sure. If there's opportunity for it. I have several friends who went and volunteered for service.

"I have friends..." Sounds a little like stolen valor to me.

Nope. I just know how to do it. I know how to do it practically and have been informed about what it entails.

You don't know what my friends fought for. I have friends with values I don't share. A true liberal

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have friends with values I don't share.

Sir, that is blasphemy in these here parts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How can you call yourself a liberal and be fine with letting a monster like Saddam stay in power?

This is the absolute immorality of those who supported this massive atrocity.

It was not just Hussein who was harmed.

We attacked and killed totally innocent people.

We terrorized millions of totally innocent people.

We left people without electricity and clean water for years.

Those that justify attacking and killing and torturing and raping the innocent have no morality.

They should be shunned from society.

Spoken like a true coward. Just be careful up there. If you fall off your extremely high horse you have a long fall to go.

But enjoy your warming blanket of smugness. I have a feeling that this discussion won't go anywhere. We don't agree

 

[ZiprHead]

"I have friends..." Sounds a little like stolen valor to me.

Nope. I just know how to do it. I know how to do it practically and have been informed about what it entails.

You don't know what my friends fought for. I have friends with values I don't share. A true liberal

And yet you don't do it. Fancy that.

 

[untermensche]

How can you call yourself a liberal and be fine with letting a monster like Saddam stay in power?

This is the absolute immorality of those who supported this massive atrocity.

It was not just Hussein who was harmed.

We attacked and killed totally innocent people.

We terrorized millions of totally innocent people.

We left people without electricity and clean water for years.

Those that justify attacking and killing and torturing and raping the innocent have no morality.

They should be shunned from society.

Spoken like a true coward. Just be careful up there. If you fall off your extremely high horse you have a long fall to go.

But enjoy your warming blanket of smugness. I have a feeling that this discussion won't go anywhere. We don't agree

I joined the Marines at 18 and served honorably for 4 years.

I am not a coward.

I have morality.

Sometimes circumstances force you into a war.

And sometimes scumbags lie to drive a nation into a voluntary war of pure choice. Really a huge act of terrorism.

That people justify the latter and allow it makes the world a lot worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"I have friends..." Sounds a little like stolen valor to me.

Nope. I just know how to do it. I know how to do it practically and have been informed about what it entails.

You don't know what my friends fought for. I have friends with values I don't share. A true liberal

And yet you don't do it. Fancy that.

This whole attempt to shame me for my opinion on this is stupid. Its not like people who wouldn't hurt a fly are helping. What wars are they fighting? What are they protecting? What wars have you fought in and why?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Spoken like a true coward. Just be careful up there. If you fall off your extremely high horse you have a long fall to go.

But enjoy your warming blanket of smugness. I have a feeling that this discussion won't go anywhere. We don't agree

I joined the Marines at 18 and served honorably for 4 years.

I am not a coward.

I have morality.

Sometimes circumstances force you into a war.

And sometimes scumbags lie to drive a nation into a voluntary war of pure choice. Really a huge act of terrorism.

That people justify the latter and allow it makes the world a lot worse.

That doesn't change the fact that you're taking a cowardly stance on this. An immoral stance IMHO

Saddam had a long list of genuine crimes he was guilty of that was more than enough of a justification to invade

 

[untermensche]

Spoken like a true coward. Just be careful up there. If you fall off your extremely high horse you have a long fall to go.

But enjoy your warming blanket of smugness. I have a feeling that this discussion won't go anywhere. We don't agree

I joined the Marines at 18 and served honorably for 4 years.

I am not a coward.

I have morality.

Sometimes circumstances force you into a war.

And sometimes scumbags lie to drive a nation into a voluntary war of pure choice. Really a huge act of terrorism.

That people justify the latter and allow it makes the world a lot worse.

That doesn't change the fact that you're taking a cowardly stance on this. An immoral stance IMHO

Saddam had a long list of genuine crimes he was guilty of that was more than enough of a justification to invade

We had no moral right to kill innocent people to remove a leader we didn't like.

The US was in no danger.

It was a deliberate unprovoked attack of millions of innocent people.

Then when things got tough it was the rounding up of innocent people and torturing them.

It was a horribly immoral crime against humanity.

In the invasion of Iraq the US plays the part of the imperial tyrant.

It not only caused untold damage to Iraq and Iraqi's the mismanagement led to sectarian hostilities that hadn't existed in centuries that still exist.

And the terrorist attack led to a powerful ISIS.

The people that ordered this immoral attack are also responsible for all the damage done by ISIS.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That doesn't change the fact that you're taking a cowardly stance on this. An immoral stance IMHO

Saddam had a long list of genuine crimes he was guilty of that was more than enough of a justification to invade

We had no moral right to kill innocent people to remove a leader we didn't like.

The US was in no danger.

It was a deliberate unprovoked attack of millions of innocent people.

Then when things got tough it was the rounding up of innocent people and torturing them.

It was a horribly immoral crime against humanity.

In the invasion of Iraq the US plays the part of the imperial tyrant.

It not only caused untold damage to Iraq and Iraqi's the mismanagement led to sectarian hostilities that hadn't existed in centuries that still exist.

And the terrorist attack led to a powerful ISIS.

The people that ordered this immoral attack are also responsible for all the damage done by ISIS.

I think the democratic countries of the world had the right, and the duty to invade. It would have been wrong not to.

Leaving dictators alone to oppress their people's is what I think is immoral. In every other case you seem so opposed to dictatorships. But in this special case you're all for it. You seem confused.

I don't think we'll find any common ground here. I think our views are diametrically apart

 

[Canard DuJour]

I've rarely encountered the illiberal, ultra-PC etc left. But I've encountered plenty of alt-right types who rail against it. I think the former is mostly the latter's bogeyman; fabricated to distract from the failings of neoliberalism.

..as others have said.

That said, centre-left mainstream parties do sometimes seem more concerned with identity politics than the failings of neoliberalism.

But what are these identities? Are we talking race? Gender? Class?

In the case of centre-left parties, anything but class. That's how they made themselves irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

That doesn't change the fact that you're taking a cowardly stance on this. An immoral stance IMHO

Saddam had a long list of genuine crimes he was guilty of that was more than enough of a justification to invade

We had no moral right to kill innocent people to remove a dictator we didn't like.

The US was in no danger.

It was a deliberate unprovoked attack of millions of innocent people.

Then when things got tough it was the rounding up of innocent people and torturing them.

It was a horribly immoral crime against humanity.

In the invasion of Iraq the US plays the part of the imperial tyrant.

It not only caused untold damage to Iraq and Iraqi's the mismanagement led to sectarian hostilities that hadn't existed in centuries that still exist.

And the terrorist attack led to a powerful ISIS.

The people that ordered this immoral attack are also responsible for all the damage done by ISIS.

I think the democratic countries of the world had the right, and the duty to invade. It would have been wrong not to.

It was a deliberate attack of people.

The murder of people.

It was not merely the removal of a dictator.

You have given no moral right to kill and torture and rape innocent people.

Murder and Torture and Rape are not justified simply because the US wants to do it.

Your position is despicable. It is inhuman and robotic, soulless.

You do not give a shit about the deliberate murder torture and rape of innocent people.

The US is not the protector of anyone.

It is a gluttonous violent self serving nation.

Saudi Arabia is an immoral crazed fundamentalist dictatorship.

Clearly the US has no problem with dictatorships.

Your position is immoral.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the democratic countries of the world had the right, and the duty to invade. It would have been wrong not to.

It was a deliberate attack of people.

The murder of people.

It was not merely the removal of a leader.

You have given no moral right to kill and torture and rape innocent people.

Murder and Torture and Rape are not justified simply because the US wants to do it.

Your position is despicable. It is inhuman and robotic, soulless.

You do not give a shit about the deliberate murder torture and rape of innocent people.

The US is not the protector of anyone.

It is a gluttonous violent self serving nation.

Again.. when Bush was selling us the war nowhere in the speech was rape and torture. So nobody who supported USA in this war was voting for rape and torture. So why do you keep bringing it up? Also, the Saddam regime was a constant ongoing rape and torture of a nation. You don't seem to care about that? The regime was so out of control in this regard I'm pretty sure the American torture of prisoners was tame in comparison. The difference between them is that Iraq didn't have a free press so the numbers was hidden. But Saddam kept an entire population in constant fear. That says something. The fact that you feel safe writing what you're writing now means that the current regime is better.

Yes, wars are deliberate attacks on people. What's your point? The coalition removed Saddam, made Iraq democratic, and then fucked off. I can't see you have an argument.

I also think your position is despicable. It's totally inhuman and soulless. I care about people opressed by dicatators and want to do what's necessary to get rid of them. But nice to know that you don't. You're quite the hero *sarcasm*

USA has a lot of faults, but at least they invaded Iraq and did what they set out to do. I'm grateful to USA for doing it.

Even if USA takes all of Iraq's oil for eternity... it still won't pay for what it cost USA financially. And that's not mentioning American lives lost.

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

All free democratic countries should be the protector of all people everywhere. That's my attitude. USA is in the club, and have a free pass to act.

 

[untermensche]

Again.. when Bush was selling us the war nowhere in the speech was rape and torture.

This is not a topic for children.

With any such massive violent attack there is always murder there is always torture there is always rape.

Adults know this going in.

That is why war is morally always a last resort.

The attack of Iraq was far from a last resort. It was not even needed.

It was a huge crime against humanity.

And those that still defend it are moral midgets.

All free democratic countries should be the protector of all people everywhere.

The US formed the UN and signed the Charter. Morally and legally the US is bound by the dictates of the UN.

The UN heard Colin Powell's pack of lies and said war was not necessary at this time.

The US attacked anyway.

Violating international law and it's duties to the UN.

There is no justification for that massive crime against humanity.

To say it was moral and legal means any nation is morally and legally permitted to do the same to any nation of their choosing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Again.. when Bush was selling us the war nowhere in the speech was rape and torture.

This is not a topic for children.

With any such massive violent attack there is always murder there is always torture there is always rape.

Adults know this going in.

That is why war is morally always a last resort.

The attack of Iraq was far from a last resort. It was not even needed.

It was a huge crime against humanity.

And those that still defend it are moral midgets.

We just completely disagree on this. I think you're totally in the wrong.

Everybody agreed he had to go. He wasn't cooperating. That leads only one thing. And if, after everything he'd done, he was left to stay in power the international community would show themselves to be a complete pushover for any other dictator. I'd say that clock was already in overtime.

BTW, it was only a matter of time before the rest of Europe would have joined in. Bush rushed the war because he wanted it to have started before his re-election was up. That's why USA went against the UN. But the disagreement was on timing IMHO, not if we should invade.

All free democratic countries should be the protector of all people everywhere.

The US formed the UN and signed the Charter. Morally and legally the US is bound by the dictates of the UN.

The UN heard Colin Powell's pack of lies and said war was not necessary at this time.

The US attacked anyway.

Violating international law and it's duties to the UN.

There is no justification for that massive crime against humanity.

To say it was moral and legal means any nation is morally and legally permitted to do the same to any nation of their choosing.

Yeah, but the UN has a bunch of dictators as members. Their voices don't count. The free world was almost completely for the war. I think only Germany was firmly against. I recall the Korean war. The only reason USA managed to scrape together enough votes that time was because China boycotted the security council at the time. They quickly got wise. We won't be that lucky again.

Nah... there was no justification for not attacking. That would have been a crime against humanity.

 

[untermensche]

We just completely disagree on this. I think you're totally in the wrong.

You're defending capricious and unneeded murder and torture and rape.

Everybody agreed he had to go.

Not the UN.

If it was so necessary why did Powell have to tell nothing but lies?

Why was there nothing real to talk about?

Yeah, but the UN has a bunch of dictators as members. Their voices don't count.

France? Germany? Norway?

Dictators?

The dictators were the people who voted for the invasion over the will of their people.

The dictators were in England, Australia, Spain, Denmark and Poland.

Nothing can defend that huge crime against humanity.

Those that try show all they believe in is American exceptionalism.

With GW as the great leader of the world killing and torturing and raping at will.

The UN acted just fine when Hussein invaded Kuwait. It ordered war to restore the Kuwaiti dictatorship.

The UN acts in favor of dictatorships and democracies.

It just depends what they do.

If there was a strong enough power in the world it would have stopped the US deliberate murder, torture and rape.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're defending capricious and unneeded murder and torture and rape.



Not the UN.

If it was so necessary why did Powell have to tell nothing but lies?

Why was there nothing real to talk about?

Yeah, but the UN has a bunch of dictators as members. Their voices don't count.

France? Germany? Norway?

Dictators?

The dictators were the people who voted for the invasion over the will of their people.

The dictators were in England, Australia, Spain, Denmark and Poland.

Nothing can defend that huge crime against humanity.

Those that try show all they believe in is American exceptionalism.

With GW as the great leader of the world killing and torturing and raping at will.

The UN acted just fine when Hussein invaded Kuwait. It ordered war to restore the Kuwaiti dictatorship.

The UN acts in favor of dictatorships and democracies.

It just depends what they do.

If there was a strong enough power in the world it would have stopped the US deliberate murder, torture and rape.

Let's just hope most good people don't have your impeccable morals. Or our world is truly fucked