"Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’"

[ZiprHead]

I'm also of the view that the illiberal left, or regressive left or whatever you wish to call it, is an overblown concept, one amplified by the far right that needs an enemy. One cannot judge the entirety of the left by what ones sees on Twitter (which is quite a bit what I think Fry is mistakenly doing here) nor can you judge it by what's going on in some college campuses. Kids are often entitled and ignorant,

I'm not sure I would use the word entitled. I would say idealistic to a fault, making the perfect the enemy of the good. I think it's the same reason Libertarianism is popular amongst that crowd. They usually grow out of both viewpoints when they meet the real world.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm also of the view that the illiberal left, or regressive left or whatever you wish to call it, is an overblown concept, one amplified by the far right that needs an enemy. One cannot judge the entirety of the left by what ones sees on Twitter (which is quite a bit what I think Fry is mistakenly doing here) nor can you judge it by what's going on in some college campuses.

Fry isn't equating the whole of the left to the illiberal left. That's why he's talking about the rest of us down in the bottom of the chasm silently looking up. He is done being silent. He is speaking out for the actual left. That's a good thing. We need more of it. There are more of us in the actual left than the amplified voices of the illiberal left, but the latter stands up on high platforms and take the visibility, as do the alt-right. Not everyone on the right is a nazi either, despite how some on the left would paint them.

The up and coming progressive movement with a younger generation and new leaders is what's needed in my opinion.

I agree. But as you wrote above, this cohort is especially vulnerable to the illiberal left way of thinking. They are both our best hope and a potential danger unless we are careful and push back against illiberal and for liberal. That means free speech. That means equal opportunity for all. And that means not prejudging or putting people into boxes based on race or gender.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm also of the view that the illiberal left, or regressive left or whatever you wish to call it, is an overblown concept, one amplified by the far right that needs an enemy. One cannot judge the entirety of the left by what ones sees on Twitter (which is quite a bit what I think Fry is mistakenly doing here) nor can you judge it by what's going on in some college campuses.

Fry isn't equating the whole of the left to the illiberal left. That's why he's talking about the rest of us down in the bottom of the chasm silently looking up. He is done being silent. He is speaking out for the actual left. That's a good thing. We need more of it. There are more of us in the actual left than the amplified voices of the illiberal left, but the latter stands up on high platforms and take the visibility, as do the alt-right. Not everyone on the right is a nazi either, despite how some on the left would paint them.

The up and coming progressive movement with a younger generation and new leaders is what's needed in my opinion.

I agree. But as you wrote above, this cohort is especially vulnerable to the illiberal left way of thinking. They are both our best hope and a potential danger unless we are careful and push back against illiberal and for liberal. That means free speech. That means equal opportunity for all. And that means not prejudging or putting people into boxes based on race or gender.

Those of us on the actual left are not liberals and are against liberalism. The people you refer to as "illiberal", who seem to be preoccupied with race and gender, rather than the class divisions and economic inequalities race and gender are so often employed to conceal, are actually liberals.

Anytime you hear people calling for tolerance, civility, moderation, the middle ground, sensible policy shifts, gradual reform, more or less progressive taxation, or more or less regulation of private banks, those people are also liberals.

It may seem to be nitpicking, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression about the left and about liberalism from your posts, and you frequently use these labels in a misleading way.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Fry isn't equating the whole of the left to the illiberal left. That's why he's talking about the rest of us down in the bottom of the chasm silently looking up. He is done being silent. He is speaking out for the actual left. That's a good thing. We need more of it. There are more of us in the actual left than the amplified voices of the illiberal left, but the latter stands up on high platforms and take the visibility, as do the alt-right. Not everyone on the right is a nazi either, despite how some on the left would paint them.




I agree. But as you wrote above, this cohort is especially vulnerable to the illiberal left way of thinking. They are both our best hope and a potential danger unless we are careful and push back against illiberal and for liberal. That means free speech. That means equal opportunity for all. And that means not prejudging or putting people into boxes based on race or gender.

Those of us on the actual left are not liberals and are against liberalism. The people you refer to as "illiberal", who seem to be preoccupied with race and gender, rather than the class divisions and economic inequalities race and gender are so often employed to conceal, are actually liberals.

Anytime you hear people calling for tolerance, civility, moderation, the middle ground, sensible policy shifts, gradual reform, more or less progressive taxation, or more or less regulation of private banks, those people are also liberals.

It may seem to be nitpicking, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression about the left and about liberalism from your posts, and you frequently use these labels in a misleading way.

I do? Strange since I agree with you. My only reason I even used the word "illiberal" is that Fry did so. Many of these terms, liberal, regressive left, illiberal, neocon, classic liberal, etc are often (unfortunately) open for interpretation, and mean different things to different people. Sometimes people do this unintentionally, often times not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think he meant me.

To me, "liberal" means free speech, not prejudging people based on gender, race etc, open to and pushing for change and new ideas, and not authoritarian. Its why I don't think there could be an authoritarian liberal, but there could be an authoritarian leftist or illiberal. By "left" I mean economic left, socialism, etc. I'm actually a lefty and a liberal myself. I'm for free speech, not judging by group identities, anti-authoritarian, as well as social programs like universal basic income and universal health care and publicly funded schools and elections, which of course would all come with higher taxes.

By "illiberal" I mean somebody who is not liberal, which would technically include conservatives, but which is usually used to describe people on the left who are not liberal. Liberal and left have been united together for so long in so many minds that it needs a special pointing out when they diverge, as they do with much of the SJW "regressive" left, calling for deplatforming people and other censorship, insisting on categorizing people by group identities and collectively blaming or judging them for good or ill, etc. Demands for censorship are not liberal. They are illiberal. Liberal is the quote often misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". We should be fighting in the marketplace of ideas rather than in the battle of censorship and deplatforming.

At least that's my view, and I believe Fry shares it. Let the Spencers and Bannons and Elams and Hirsi Ali's and of the world speak. Fight them with your own ideas should you disagree. Don't praise repression just because it is on your "side".

 

[PyramidHead]

I think he meant me.

To me, "liberal" means free speech, not prejudging people based on gender, race etc, open to and pushing for change and new ideas, and not authoritarian. Its why I don't think there could be an authoritarian liberal, but there could be an authoritarian leftist or illiberal. By "left" I mean economic left, socialism, etc. I'm actually a lefty and a liberal myself. I'm for free speech, not judging by group identities, anti-authoritarian, as well as social programs like universal basic income and universal health care and publicly funded schools and elections, which of course would all come with higher taxes.

I would say those are liberal ideas, but not really socialist ideas. Inasmuch as liberals in the United States are content with making modifications to the existing system, I would say that they qualify as eminently authoritarian: the authority of the boss over the employee, the investor over the boss, the police officer over the thug, the state and its interests over the will of its people, and all of the other symptoms of capitalism that never really go away regardless of who is elected. That's all liberal representative republican politics.

Universal basic income is opposed by most socialists. It prolongs the capitalist system, and acts as a band-aid to keep workers in their place (which is possibly why it was historically championed by Milton Friedman and other neoclassical economists, and is being picked up by libertarian types these days). It will benefit workers, but the analogy has often been drawn to the so-called "benevolent masters" in the deep south prior to the Civil War, whose slaves were cowed into thinking they had it better on the plantation than they would if they were granted their freedom. What I'm saying is that you're not really a leftist, but you're a liberal, and your views are mostly in agreement with other liberals--including progressives, conservatives, Democrats, libertarians, Republicans, social Democrats and democratic socialists, all of whom have more in common than they have in conflict, compared to a leftist who is not liberal.

By "illiberal" I mean somebody who is not liberal, which would technically include conservatives, but which is usually used to describe people on the left who are not liberal. Liberal and left have been united together for so long in so many minds that it needs a special pointing out when they diverge, as they do with much of the SJW "regressive" left, calling for deplatforming people and other censorship, insisting on categorizing people by group identities and collectively blaming or judging them for good or ill, etc. Demands for censorship are not liberal. They are illiberal. Liberal is the quote often misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". We should be fighting in the marketplace of ideas rather than in the battle of censorship and deplatforming.

At least that's my view, and I believe Fry shares it. Let the Spencers and Bannons and Elams and Hirsi Ali's and of the world speak. Fight them with your own ideas should you disagree. Don't praise repression just because it is on your "side".

We do not live in a world that gives us the luxury of simultaneously (a) allowing public speech that incites violence by radicalizing frustrated men who have been fucked by the prevailing order, and (b) relinquishing total control over the media and other instruments of the dissemination of ideas to a tiny minority of rich capitalists. When white nationalists gather in public to speak, I support the people who arrive to punch them in the face repeatedly, though I am admittedly too much of a coward to do it myself. Free speech has been constantly used as a bludgeoning tool by the powerful elite to maintain their power, and when applied universally without regard for the message gives inordinate influence to those with the most money, who tend to be assholes. I have nothing against freedom of speech as a general starting principle, but liberals place it on a pedestal that is not warranted. Nonviolence is another such concept, and I will absolutely praise "deplatforming" and violence if and when it is directed against neo-Nazis. I wouldn't be a leftist if I thought that giving someone the chance to argue their position was more important than not allowing Nazis to gain any kind of foothold in America in 2018. If I thought that, I would be a liberal, like you say.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

One cannot judge the entirety of the left by what ones sees on Twitter (which is quite a bit what I think Fry is mistakenly doing here) nor can you judge it by what's going on in some college campuses. Kids are often entitled and ignorant,

I never understood that. Kids often do dumb stuff in college. That's how college has always been.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We do not live in a world that gives us the luxury of simultaneously (a) allowing public speech that incites violence by radicalizing frustrated men who have been fucked by the prevailing order, and (b) relinquishing total control over the media and other instruments of the dissemination of ideas to a tiny minority of rich capitalists.

I would much rather change (b) than (a). Censorship, even of speech with the worst content is not good. Let that speech be spoken, and then counter it with better ideas. I agree that a monopoly on the megaphone is a serious problem, but I'm not certain what hte best solution to it is. We need to find a way in which more people can more easily be heard. Shutting people down, especially those with minority dangerous ideas, isn't that.

When white nationalists gather in public to speak, I support the people who arrive to punch them in the face repeatedly, though I am admittedly too much of a coward to do it myself.

I don't. I don't support repeatedly punching anyone in the face. And I noticed you wrote white nationalists and not white supremacists or violent white nationalists or nazis. That alarms me.

And I am curious why you stop at punch in the face? Why not kill? Why is one ok for you but not the other? Or are both ok? If somebody shot Richard Spencer dead tomorrow, should they be charged or praised?

- - - Updated - - -

One cannot judge the entirety of the left by what ones sees on Twitter (which is quite a bit what I think Fry is mistakenly doing here) nor can you judge it by what's going on in some college campuses. Kids are often entitled and ignorant,

I never understood that. Kids often do dumb stuff in college. That's how college has always been.

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

 

[Elixir]

I don't support repeatedly punching anyone in the face.

Nor do I. If they don't get the message the first time, what's the point?

 

[RVonse]

I think he meant me.

To me, "liberal" means free speech, not prejudging people based on gender, race etc, open to and pushing for change and new ideas, and not authoritarian. Its why I don't think there could be an authoritarian liberal, but there could be an authoritarian leftist or illiberal. By "left" I mean economic left, socialism, etc. I'm actually a lefty and a liberal myself. I'm for free speech, not judging by group identities, anti-authoritarian, as well as social programs like universal basic income and universal health care and publicly funded schools and elections, which of course would all come with higher taxes.

By "illiberal" I mean somebody who is not liberal, which would technically include conservatives, but which is usually used to describe people on the left who are not liberal. Liberal and left have been united together for so long in so many minds that it needs a special pointing out when they diverge, as they do with much of the SJW "regressive" left, calling for deplatforming people and other censorship, insisting on categorizing people by group identities and collectively blaming or judging them for good or ill, etc. Demands for censorship are not liberal. They are illiberal. Liberal is the quote often misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". We should be fighting in the marketplace of ideas rather than in the battle of censorship and deplatforming.

At least that's my view, and I believe Fry shares it. Let the Spencers and Bannons and Elams and Hirsi Ali's and of the world speak. Fight them with your own ideas should you disagree. Don't praise repression just because it is on your "side".

Not an authoritative liberal but they are actually intolerant liberals. An intolerant liberal does seem like a contradiction of terms, yet that is exactly how they act.

 

[ZiprHead]

To me, "liberal" means free speech, not prejudging people based on gender, race etc, open to and pushing for change and new ideas, and not authoritarian. Its why I don't think there could be an authoritarian liberal, but there could be an authoritarian leftist or illiberal. By "left" I mean economic left, socialism, etc. I'm actually a lefty and a liberal myself. I'm for free speech, not judging by group identities, anti-authoritarian, as well as social programs like universal basic income and universal health care and publicly funded schools and elections, which of course would all come with higher taxes.

Dude, You literally started a thread with this: "I didn't expect the new Dr. Who to be as good as the previous seasons, because the titular character is now filled with a woman." That's pretty prejudiced and pandering to identity politics. Then you went on about women taking roles that in the past were filled by men, calling it PC. Or maybe, it's really a "new idea". but you weren't open to that.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I called myself out in doing it. I did it because of the trend I had noticed and the expectation it set. I caught myself prejudging something I should not have due to this trend. Humility. Try it. You may like it.

 

[Underseer]

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

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

Ah yes. Now that fascism is on the rise throughout the Western world, the solution is to have everyone stop opposing it.

Because that always works to stop the rise of fascism. Remember how well that tactic worked to stop the rise of fascism in Germany?

- - - Updated - - -

To me, "liberal" means free speech, not prejudging people based on gender, race etc, open to and pushing for change and new ideas, and not authoritarian. Its why I don't think there could be an authoritarian liberal, but there could be an authoritarian leftist or illiberal. By "left" I mean economic left, socialism, etc. I'm actually a lefty and a liberal myself. I'm for free speech, not judging by group identities, anti-authoritarian, as well as social programs like universal basic income and universal health care and publicly funded schools and elections, which of course would all come with higher taxes.

Dude, You literally started a thread with this: "I didn't expect the new Dr. Who to be as good as the previous seasons, because the titular character is now filled with a woman." That's pretty prejudiced and pandering to identity politics. Then you went on about women taking roles that in the past were filled by men, calling it PC. Or maybe, it's really a "new idea". but you weren't open to that.

Physician, heal thyself.

Yes, and by criticizing him for it, you are the one engaging in identity politics.

He is a member of the superior gender and the superior master race, so when he does it, he's just pointing out the obvious. By complaining it, you are upsetting the natural order of superior white males, and thus engaging in a very ugly political discussion that might make some white males feel less special, and less like princess snowflakes, which makes you a bad and mean person.

 

[WAB]

Ah yes. Now that fascism is on the rise throughout the Western world, the solution is to have everyone stop opposing it.

Because that always works to stop the rise of fascism. Remember how well that tactic worked to stop the rise of fascism in Germany?

- - - Updated - - -

To me, "liberal" means free speech, not prejudging people based on gender, race etc, open to and pushing for change and new ideas, and not authoritarian. Its why I don't think there could be an authoritarian liberal, but there could be an authoritarian leftist or illiberal. By "left" I mean economic left, socialism, etc. I'm actually a lefty and a liberal myself. I'm for free speech, not judging by group identities, anti-authoritarian, as well as social programs like universal basic income and universal health care and publicly funded schools and elections, which of course would all come with higher taxes.

Dude, You literally started a thread with this: "I didn't expect the new Dr. Who to be as good as the previous seasons, because the titular character is now filled with a woman." That's pretty prejudiced and pandering to identity politics. Then you went on about women taking roles that in the past were filled by men, calling it PC. Or maybe, it's really a "new idea". but you weren't open to that.

Physician, heal thyself.

Yes, and by criticizing him for it, you are the one engaging in identity politics.

He is a member of the superior gender and the superior master race, so when he does it, he's just pointing out the obvious. By complaining it, you are upsetting the natural order of superior white males, and thus engaging in a very ugly political discussion that might make some white males feel less special, and less like princess snowflakes, which makes you a bad and mean person.

Forgive me if I'm thinking of someone else, but I thought it had been established, several times, that JP is not "white"?

I, however, am a very special princess (from Zimiamvia).



/humor

 

[Lion IRC]

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

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

Fitting that he was giving the inaugural Hitch address. He and Christopher Hitchens personify the type of smug, in-your-face, anti-establishment arrogance which taught all manner of malcontents (like New Atheists) how to kick hornets nests and poke bears, and which worked so successfully, that everyone watching said...hey, I can do THAT



#Karma is a bitch

 

[prideandfall]

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

no, it really didn't - you and so many others are fundamentally misunderstanding what happened, conflating an action with the intentions behind that action.

in the 60s, 70s, and 80s the kids were protesting to be able to criticize the government, to be gay, to be not-white, to be atheist, to listen to rock music, to have sex, to have reproductive rights, to not be drafted, to not foster a system of capitalistic exploitation.
they were protesting in an attempt to further the betterment of the human condition.
now, they're protesting against giving literal nazis being given a platform to screech propaganda at college students, and protesting a culture that not only allows that sort of thing but actively encourages it.

college protests of this sort are almost always about some cause that ostensibly furthers the progression of the culture or the species, it's never as simplistic or hare-brained as "free speech" - you're just twisting it to try and revise history to make it that way because it serves the purposes of your narrative.

 

[Lion IRC]

So nice to see FODI honouring primitive Bronze Stone Age religion
Welcome to Country Smoking Ceremony.

Richard Dawkins would be all choked up with emotion no doubt.



https://twitter.com/UNSW/status/1058522963912253440?s=20

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

Here are my thoughts.

There are a lot of racists. Racism is one of the big problems. So is patriarchy. If we call engaging in trying to minimize these "identity politics," it's really an attack from the Right, trying to do re-frame of the issues. While I am sure that there are some extremists, as there are anywhere on anything, dealing with racism and patriarchy remain very important.

Regarding cultural appropriation, I think it's a term that is way overused by people from all sides. I think 90% of the time the term is used, it's not a proper example.

 

[untermensche]

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

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

Fitting that he was giving the inaugural Hitch address. He and Christopher Hitchens personify the type of smug, in-your-face, anti-establishment arrogance which taught all manner of malcontents (like New Atheists) how to kick hornets nests and poke bears, and which worked so successfully, that everyone watching said...hey, I can do THAT

View attachment 18813

#Karma is a bitch

Actually Hitches in the last years of his life transformed into an avid supporter of GW Bush and US unjustified imperial invasions.

He destroyed his reputation as a liberal thinker.

Even if some forget.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

He wasn’t the only one, as the Festival of Dangerous Ideas contemplated rapid changes in contemporary politics

Politics is so toxic right now, why not just opt out completely? When Stephen Fry proposed this approach to Sydney’s packed Town Hall on Saturday night, he was greeted with a wave of sympathy.

“A grand canyon has opened up in our world,” Fry said. On one side is the new right, promoting a bizarre mixture of Christianity and libertarianism; on the other, the “illiberal liberals”, obsessed with identity politics and complaining about things like cultural appropriation. These tiny factions war above, while the rest of us watch, aghast, from the chasm below.

“Is this what is meant by the fine art of disagreement?” Fry asked. “A plague on both their houses.”

I'm also repulsed by both the alt-right (which I think he is meaning to referring to with the "new right") and the section of the left, which appears to be dominant these days, promoting identity politics, ridiculous concepts like cultural appropriation, etc. Yes, opting out from the whole shitshow is appealing to me as well. I can't say I am optimistic about the way the world is currently heading, at least not in the short term.

But even on this forum we have the same divide. In every discussion there's always the contingent of those with a leftist agenda perched so high on their high horse that everybody else is the equivalent of Hitler. Or the copy pasta alt-right trolls who seem to only read fake news sites or tabloids and who don't seem to take in when their arguments continually crash'n'burn. This site is no different from the world at large IMHO. ... and we're supposed to be the rational ones.

I'm also a classic liberal. Go go Fry.