liberalism is a mental disease - what does that mean?

BrianFantana said:
Not going to defend her, because I don't know who she is and I don't watch the Young Turks, but these are pretty blatantly cherry-picked and devoid of any context whatsoever. Hard to form an opinion.
Click to expand...

Ana Kasparian is a strong example of what comes from the left these days. Smug, Self-Righteous, Condescending and neurotic.
 
Devout Pessimist said:
The following video is a perfect example of what people are referring to when they say liberalism is a mental disorder. Notice the delusion, hypocrisy, rage and smug self-righteousness.

Click to expand...


I have only seen her a few times so looked up more info on her. Wikipedia says she grew up in Reseda. I wonder if she knows Daniel Larusso.
 
When you have a group whose major initiatives include getting trans men into women's bathrooms and importing vast numbers of people who execute trans men without a second thought, you begin to wonder what their thought process is.
 
Devout Pessimist said:
Ana Kasparian is a strong example of what comes from the left these days. Smug, Self-Righteous, Condescending and neurotic.
Click to expand...

I don't think that categorizing people who share a political ideology as some sort of "other" beings is really all that helpful to discourse. I mean, the going theory is that the same thing is what alienated conservatives and hardened their resolve to vote for a wholly unqualified candidate for president, just to prove a point.
 
Greoric said:
Right. They had to retract it, because the data had the representation flipped. It makes sense that people like you would be more neurotic and authoritarian. All of your policy prescriptions revolve around solving societal issues with violence.
Click to expand...

My policy prescriptions? Solving societal issues with violence? I have no idea what you're talking about. It's an interesting, if completely incorrect, hypothesis.
 
BrianFantana said:
My policy prescriptions? Solving societal issues with violence? I have no idea what you're talking about. It's an interesting, if completely incorrect, hypothesis.
Click to expand...

You think so huh? How would you describe a few of your policy opinions?
 
Cmart said:
When you have a group whose major initiatives include getting trans men into women's bathrooms and importing vast numbers of people who execute trans men without a second thought, you begin to wonder what their thought process is.
Click to expand...

Mills' Harm principle states, "No one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others"

A liberal following that principle would say there is no compelling reason the state should get involved if a guy wants to dress as a woman or a woman wants to dress as a guy.

However, If a guy beat up a transperson, the state should get involved because in that circumstance harm has occurred.

If a transperson does molest a kid in a bathroom, there is harm and the state should be involved.

Liberal ideology would be against using Christian ideology to impose trans dress a certain way because the Christians believe the trans will burn in hell (paternalism) or the way the trans person dresses will harm others (no palpable harm occurred).
 
Last edited:
jeffk said:
Mills Harm principle says, "No one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others"

A liberal following that principle would say there is no compelling reason the state should get involved if a guy wants to dress as a woman or a woman wants to dress as a guy.

However, If a guy beat up a transperson, the state should get involved because there harm occurred.

If a transperson does molest a kid in a bathroom there is harm and the state should be involved.

Liberals ideology would be against using Christian ideology to impose trans dress a different way because the Christians think the trans will burn in hell or harm others by the way they dress.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension fail. The problem isn't gay rights. It's fighting for both gay rights and the initiative to import thousands of people who execute others for being gay. Contradictory thinking should give pause to anyone examining it.
 
Greoric said:
You think so huh? How would you describe a few of your policy opinions?
Click to expand...

That's a pretty broad question. I'll try to touch the broad strokes, I guess:

1. Domestic policy

A. Aversion and rehabilitation over incarceration
B. Single payer healthcare
C. Increased funding for job retraining to lighten strain on welfare systems
D. Universal maternity, paternity leave
E. Universal childcare benefit allowance
F. Centralize criminal law-making power
G. Universal minimum wage
H. Increased restrictions on gun ownership
I. Increase infrastructure spending in developing urban areas
J. Increase government grants for renewable energy research
K. Increase government spending in short term for carbon recapture at currently existing coal and natural gas plants

2. Foreign policy

A. Generally scale back foreign military involvement
B. Transition military assault roles to peacekeeping roles, where necessary
C. Rework funding arrangements for foreign military involvement; increase contribution of countries requiring assistance
D. Comply with UN regulations regarding military engagement
E. Maintain current structure of NAFTA, as the US is really import-dependent at the moment
F. Maintain NATO for the same reason

It's extremely broad, like I said. And yeah, I'm very liberal in terms of my social policy, but I also travel a ton and have seen where spending in certain areas can reduce spending tremendously in others. Incarceration is a huge money pit, and states like Texas (before Perry) that increased their rates of diversion programs saw enormous benefits in terms of incarceration and recidivism rates. It's a Scandinavian model. Similarly, single-payer healthcare is common in most first world nations, and though it contributes to longer ER wait times in certain areas, it is generally correlated with higher quality of life.

The criminal law making power of each state leads to inconsistent enforcement and problematic interstate relations. Mat and pat leave correlate to improved childhood development. Universal (living) minimum wage, as in Denmark, Finland and Sweden is correlated to their very high standards of living and low rates of poverty.

Anyway, tear me a new one.
 
You're joking, right?
Edit
Nevermind, saw you're talking about yesterday's liberals. They're gone like yesterday's repubs, at least in the political world.
jeffk said:
I see people write that and say that. What does it suppose to mean?

How are they defining liberalism?

To me liberals promote individual rights, free speech, free press, freedom of religion, secular governments and gender equality. Guys like John Stuart Mills who said the state should get involved unless there is harm or injury is a major guy for liberalism.

It seems like guys like Rush Limbaugh have tried to make liberal a derogatory term. I am still not sure what people mean when they say liberals in a derogatory way. I think they mean leftists or Marxists.

When you or your friends say liberalism is a mental disorder, how are you defining liberalism?

The SJW types going into lectures and disrupting speakers are not liberals. They are partaking in illiberal actions.
Click to expand...
 
BrianFantana said:
That's a pretty broad question. I'll try to touch the broad strokes, I guess:

1. Domestic policy

A. Aversion and rehabilitation over incarceration
B. Single payer healthcare
C. Increased funding for job retraining to lighten strain on welfare systems
D. Universal maternity, paternity leave
E. Universal childcare benefit allowance
F. Centralize criminal law-making power
G. Universal minimum wage
H. Increased restrictions on gun ownership
I. Increase infrastructure spending in developing urban areas
J. Increase government grants for renewable energy research
K. Increase government spending in short term for carbon recapture at currently existing coal and natural gas plants

2. Foreign policy

A. Generally scale back foreign military involvement
B. Transition military assault roles to peacekeeping roles, where necessary
C. Rework funding arrangements for foreign military involvement; increase contribution of countries requiring assistance
D. Comply with UN regulations regarding military engagement
E. Maintain current structure of NAFTA, as the US is really import-dependent at the moment
F. Maintain NATO for the same reason
Click to expand...

Great, so precisely like I thought. All of the policies you propose promote violence to carry out, hence all of your only solutions to problems in society revolve around using the treats of force.
 
Cmart said:
Reading comprehension fail. The problem isn't gay rights. It's fighting for both gay rights and the initiative to import thousands of people who execute others for being gay. Contradictory thinking should give pause to anyone examining it.
Click to expand...

Man, those people being imported aren't the Syrian or Saudi government; they're just normal people. They weren't executing anyone. In many cases, they are fleeing the possibility of being executed because they themselves are gay. That's not a blanket rule, but nothing really is.

There's no contradiction.
 
Greoric said:
Great, so precisely like I thought. All of the policies you propose promote violence to carry out, hence all of your only solutions to problems in society revolve around using the treats of force.
Click to expand...

How, at all, do these "promote violence to carry out"? I'm genuinely curious.
 
jeffk said:
How was that an example of liberalism?
Click to expand...
FJIzhK9.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,941
Messages
55,456,302
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top