To all the "Good Liberals": A Rant for our Times.

[AthenaAwakened]

I have friends on the left who understand privilege. I have friends on the right who don't, but they do understand good manners.

And then there are the "good liberals." Saints preserve us!

People who mean well, but will attack ungrateful marginalized people in a heartbeat. People who will march with you in the big rally in the Capitol, but will not hear your truth unless you preface every single sentence with "but not all ______ people" (fill in the blank with whatever privileged group applies) People who will fight the fight until they feel a slight then watch out.

Incidents of hatred are on the rise and frankly, I don't have time to constantly make "good liberals" feel warm and safe and praised for their goodness. We're in a fight for our lives and if the only thing you have to worry about is a bruised ego, count yourself blessed and keep it moving.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

#notallgoodliberals

 

[Politesse]

Truth!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Translation: She wants to be prejudiced and play identity politics without being called out on it. She wants to be able to say X people are Y without individual people who are X but not Y speaking up against being prejudged.

I come from the other side of liberalism, where all individuals are to be treated fairly and not prejudged by race, gender, etc. So yes, NOT ALL X are Y, no matter how bad you feel the need to generalize. This used to be the liberal position, against all manner of racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. But now we are having to push it back on the left as well.

When I first saw this thread (before noticing the author) I thought it would be about the " good" liberals who go out of their way to virtue signal and feel good about themselves for fighting for a group they don't identify with but identify as oppressed. And then such virtue signalling "good liberals" start up for these people and may even claim to speak for them and express views and fight for agendas for them, without actually listening to the people they claim to fight for.

Or another subset is those who do identify with the grouping and who claim to speak for all the others as a whole as if all X have the same views and elected them spokesperson. Often the most important NOT ALL X comes from fellow people who are X and don't want the self important and self elected "spokespersons" speaking for them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Translation: She wants to be prejudiced and play identity politics without being called out on it. She wants to be able to say X people are Y without individual people who are X but not Y speaking up against being prejudged.

I come from the other side of liberalism, where all individuals are to be treated fairly and not prejudged by race, gender, etc. So yes, NOT ALL X are Y, no matter how bad you feel the need to generalize. This used to be the liberal position, against all manner of racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. But now we are having to push it back on the left as well.

When I first saw this thread (before noticing the author) I thought it would be about the " good" liberals who go out of their way to virtue signal and feel good about themselves for fighting for a group they don't identify with but identify as oppressed. And then such virtue signalling "good liberals" start up for these people and may even claim to speak for them and express views and fight for agendas for them, without actually listening to the people they claim to fight for.

Or another subset is those who do identify with the grouping and who claim to speak for all the others as a whole as if all X have the same views and elected them spokesperson. Often the most important NOT ALL X comes from fellow people who are X and don't want the self important and self elected "spokespersons" speaking for them.

So your school of liberalism is okay with the strawman?

 

[laughing dog]

Translation: She wants to be prejudiced and play identity politics without being called out on it. She wants to be able to say X people are Y without individual people who are X but not Y speaking up against being prejudged.

That one broke the irony meter.

I come from the other side of liberalism, where all individuals are to be treated fairly and not prejudged by race, gender, etc.

You claim that, but your posts do not exhibit that behavior. Your response to AA is an example. Your use of anti-semitic sites is another indicator.

 

[repoman]

What sites are those?

I could use some more reading material by red-pilled folks.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So your school of liberalism is okay with the strawman?

What straw man? She explicitly said she is upset at people who get sour when she attacks a group she identifies with them and she doesn't want to have to deal with them saying "not all X are Y" so they can set themselves apart... because they themselves are X but not Y. Show me how I misread that.

Now fill in the X and Y with various prejudices and you can get a flavour for what we've dealt with on the right and what we're now dealing with on the left as well.

- - - Updated - - -

What sites are those?

I could use some more reading material by red-pilled folks.

I have no idea what he's referring to. I won't shy away from reading any websites though, and I will make an effort to understand people I disagree with, unless they are just trolling as he apparently always is.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think hatred is on the rise.

It has been bad my whole life. It has never been good.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Translation: She wants to be prejudiced and play identity politics without being called out on it. She wants to be able to say X people are Y without individual people who are X but not Y speaking up against being prejudged.

That one broke the irony meter.

I come from the other side of liberalism, where all individuals are to be treated fairly and not prejudged by race, gender, etc.

You claim that, but your posts do not exhibit that behavior. Your response to AA is an example. Your use of anti-semitic sites is another indicator.

The complete sentence in question

People who will march with you in the big rally in the Capitol, but will not hear your truth unless you preface every single sentence with "but not all ______ people" (fill in the blank with whatever privileged group applies)

Not quite the same thing as what I am accused of, now is it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You forgot to quote this part

People who will fight the fight until they feel a slight then watch out.

Incidents of hatred are on the rise and frankly, I don't have time to constantly make "good liberals" feel warm and safe and praised for their goodness.

You clearly want to attack X, but you realize that doing so causes a slight to some "good liberals". You don't want to say not all X and you don't want to have to go out of your way to make them feel warm and safe. Warm and safe from what? From your prejudice.

Where have I misread this?

These "good liberals" you speak of get so sensitive and fragile because they want to be on the side of right and good, on your side, but you evidently make them feel like they are lumped in with your targets. Why do you suppose that could be, and do you think it has nothing to do with how you are speaking about the group you identify them with?

 

[untermensche]

A liberal is somebody who wants to increase democracy.

To increase democracy means to level the playing field to the greatest extent possible. That is one aspect of trying to increase democracy.

A liberal is not some kid screaming on a campus.

That is just a kid trying to find their way.

Those obsessed with the behavior of children have ulterior motives.

 

[repoman]

A liberal is somebody who wants to increase democracy.

To increase democracy means to level the playing field to the greatest extent possible. That is one aspect of trying to increase democracy.

A liberal is not some kid screaming on a campus.

That is just a kid trying to find their way.

Those obsessed with the behavior of children have ulterior motives.

 

[untermensche]

It is humorous.

And easily attacked.

But calling it liberalism and somehow pretending you have made a comment about liberalism is insanity.

A liberal is a mind that stands in opposition to those who favor despotism and want to weaken democracy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A liberal is a mind that stands in opposition to those who favor despotism and want to weaken democracy.

Just a side note, but despotism and weakened democracy can serve many aims, including those as far apart as Hitler's and as Mao's. It isn't inherently left wing or right wing. One can point at Right Wing Authoritarians, but one must then also recognize the existence of radical libertarians, both of whom lean heavily towards the right.

 

[untermensche]

A liberal is a mind that stands in opposition to those who favor despotism and want to weaken democracy.

Just a side note, but despotism and weakened democracy can serve many aims, including those as far apart as Hitler's and as Mao's. It isn't inherently left wing or right wing. One can point at Right Wing Authoritarians, but one must then also recognize the existence of radical libertarians, both of whom lean heavily towards the right.

Hitler was not in favor of democracy.

A healthy functioning democracy and a level playing field and staying out of wars is how you prevent Hitlers.

 

[laughing dog]

I have no idea what he's referring to.

It is believable you have no idea what is going on. The site is Rense.com, and you were "alerted" to it the idiotic Defense of Hitler thread you started where you wrote

I find the point about being a "chosen people" interesting. I thought the same when I first read the old testament bible, and how the God directed them to slaughter their neighbours etc. It made the holocaust take on a note of twisted irony.

I won't shy away from reading any websites though, and I will make an effort to understand people I disagree with, unless they are just trolling as he apparently always is.

BS squared by the irony impaired. From your posting history, you understand anti-semites pretty well. And it pretty clear you make no idea to understand where AA or many others on this board. Mixing condescension with "but I am a liberal" and is neither an argument nor a recipe for actual discussion. Nor is calling people "trolls" who expose your shallow thinking indicative of trying to understand people.

 

[laughing dog]

You forgot to quote this part

People who will fight the fight until they feel a slight then watch out.

Incidents of hatred are on the rise and frankly, I don't have time to constantly make "good liberals" feel warm and safe and praised for their goodness.

You clearly want to attack X, but you realize that doing so causes a slight to some "good liberals". You don't want to say not all X and you don't want to have to go out of your way to make them feel warm and safe. Warm and safe from what? From your prejudice.

Where have I misread this?

Your problem is not with reading but with thinking.
First, there is a distinct difference between "wanting" to on the side of right and good, and acting to be on the side of right and good (which usually involves actual effort and possible sacrifice). Second, in any cause, there are disagreements among the adherents. The key is to focus on the core goals and not worry about feeling "warm and safe". In fact, anyone who needs to feel "warm and safe" is pretty much useless in these movements until most of the real work has been done. Third, people who spend more time "value signalling" their moral superiority with their claims of their "liberality" may actually espouse ideas and act to enable those who oppose equality and justice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You forgot to quote this part

People who will fight the fight until they feel a slight then watch out.

Incidents of hatred are on the rise and frankly, I don't have time to constantly make "good liberals" feel warm and safe and praised for their goodness.

You clearly want to attack X, but you realize that doing so causes a slight to some "good liberals". You don't want to say not all X and you don't want to have to go out of your way to make them feel warm and safe. Warm and safe from what? From your prejudice.

Where have I misread this?

These "good liberals" you speak of get so sensitive and fragile because they want to be on the side of right and good, on your side, but you evidently make them feel like they are lumped in with your targets. Why do you suppose that could be, and do you think it has nothing to do with how you are speaking about the group you identify them with?

I know RayJ isn't really supporting the tech stuff here these days, but if he could find some time, I think it'd be helpful if he created a Jolly Penguin code that could be used to help translate what other people actually mean with their posts. It is so inconvenient to read Athena's posts and then have to wait for Jolly to show up and tell us what Athena really meant. So having the [Jolly] code would be very helpful and save us a lot of time. Maybe even have a Jolly mode where everything is automatically translated.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hitler was not in favor of democracy.

Neither was Mao. One wanted a master race to rule over all. The other wanted to level the playing field, destroy the elites and keep more from rising up. Both were horrible dictators who did horrible things.

A healthy functioning democracy and a level playing field and staying out of wars is how you prevent Hitlers.

Depends on what you mean by levelling the playing field. Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? At a group or individual level? Fair treatment to all, or equal numbers for everything? Also depends on what wars. Not fighting wars is also how Hitlers win them.