Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As I see it, the difference between “liberal” and “leftist” is that “liberal” is what liberals call themselves when they want to make them look respectable. “Leftists” is a what they are called to make them looks disrespectable.

Well, no. This completely ignores the fact that human liberty is a crucial part of the moral order, that human autonomy is a preferred reality in society and that an individual human being is and ought to be treated as morally sovereign over their own thoughts, actions and behaviours. A true liberal position would be one that fosters and upholds the moral autonomy of each person within the context of a social order that furthers that end. Liberty isn’t just a concocted illusion.

If I wouldn’t let Prager get away with making up his own definitions, why would I let you do it? The fact is the term “liberal” when applied to a political position has absolutely nothing to do with the word “liberty.” It may share a common ancestry, but in modern usage, the term “liberal” as a political position means nothing more or less than: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”

…a good discussion of the way in which liberal as a word has been distorted over the past centuries…

Words change with time. That’s not “distortion.” That’s just what words do. For example the word “fantasy” used to mean “desire or inclination.” Now it means “something imaginary.” Did the word “fantasy” get corrupted? Or did the meaning just change? If you go through the dictionary you can find many words that have alternate obsolete meanings. Most people do not call that “distorted” as you did. If you want to know what modern people mean when they speak or write, use a modern dictionary. If you want to know what Shakespeare meant, use an Old English dictionary. Each meaning is appropriate to the time in which it was used.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Oh, I quite agree that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past, and that Republicans today are more conservative than in the past. That has been going on since before Trump.

Here you are using the word “liberal” in a rather imprecise way, as in “free to act on any inclination or whim.” That isn’t the classical definition.

It is the definition in common use. Except that you have worded it with a slant to make the inclinations appear ill-considered. All it means is more willing to discard tradition.

It isn’t clear what “more conservative” means, either. Presumably conservatives are those individuals who seek to conserve the integral nature of what it means to be human and seek to forge society in a way to sustain what is truly human.

Actually, until about 30 years ago, conservative simply meant inclined to preserve tradition. But now people who are calling themselves “conservative” (like Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos) don’t seem to be particularly fond of any tradition. So I wonder if that word hasn’t changed beyond recognition too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Words mean whatever the writer or speaker wants them to mean. But definitions are only good and fruitful when the reader/listener share the same definitions.

This is true, but it isn’t conservatives who redefine terms.
The word most notably, and I would add egregiously, redefined by the left is “rights”. They want to redefine rights as something the government creates, declares, and provides for. It is a false definition because it turns rights, which are inherent, antecedent to government, and belonging to the individual, into privileges bestowed (and consequently rescindable) by government power.

Not going down that rabbit hole. But you are right in that lots of people of various political persuasions redefine terms. It is what makes it so difficult to have a civil conversation these days.

 

[JonNC]

Not going down that rabbit hole. But you are right in that lots of people of various political persuasions redefine terms. It is what makes it so difficult to have a civil conversation these days.

I think most conservatives would be very happy to agree upon the historic definitions.

 

[HarryStotle]

If I wouldn’t let Prager get away with making up his own definitions, why would I let you do it?

Interesting use of words. You are the guardian of words and definitions now? You decide what is the acceptable usage of a word?

It isn’t clear that words just change with time, just as it isn’t clear that meanings of words or their underlying reality just change with time.

The bigger issue is one of intellectual fragility, which Haidt lays down in this talk.

The section on intellectual fragility is at about 17:00. He is making the case that the phenomenon of disinviting or banning speakers from college campuses is a symptom of a much deeper issue regarding the two distinct streams in academia: 1) a concern for truth, and 2) a commitment to changing society.

He argues from the beginning of the video that these two streams trace back to JS Mill and Karl Marx respectively. Very informative for those who wish their current opinions would be challenged and potentially corrected.

There lies the connection to where liberal and leftist values derived. The two have simply become conflated and confused, largely by those on the left who have been less than forthright with their real motives, given that communism doesn’t exactly have an enviable provenance.

To be clear, that last statement isn’t a claim by Haidt, it is my conclusion from various sources.

 

[MonteRCMS]

I am interested in rehashing the debate, and precisely because the video provides a good starting point FOR debate is the reason I will provide a summary.

It also provides a lens through which to see why the issue of this current thread has taken on a life of its own.

Prager makes the claim that liberalism and leftism are often confused and people mistake them for the same political position when, in fact, they are the opposite. He cites six areas as examples of where the two differ.

1. Racism
Liberals have always viewed the color of a person’s skin as insignificant and held that those who think skin colour is significant are the real racists. Liberals have been passionately committed to racial integration.
Leftists take the position that anyone who has the attitude that race is insignificant are racists. UofC, for example, claims that the statement, “There is only one race, the human race,” is a racist statement. The left supports racial segregation in all black dormitories and graduation ceremonies, for example.

2. Capitalism
Liberals have believed in free enterprise and have always been pro-capitalism because it best lifts people out of poverty by relying upon entrepreneurial activity. Although liberals have supported bigger government than conservatives or libertarians, they have never endorsed socialism.
Leftists are opposed to capitalism, and advocate for socialism, and for government control over all aspects of life.

3. Nationalism
Liberals believe in nation states and that every nation, including America, has a sovereign right to protect its borders and its own people.
Leftists divide people by class rather than by national identity, which they claim (falsely) is the road to fascism. They oppose nationalist sentiments and advocate for open borders and globalism

4. View of America
Liberals have been overtly patriotic and venerated America in virtually every movie and TV show produced between the 1930s and 1950s by producers, directors and actors, most of whom were liberals. They saw America as the last, best, hope for the world.
Leftists see themselves and their ideology as the last best hope of earth. America, they claim, is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, violent, and imperialistic.

The Prayer University Youtube is OUTSTANDING …particularly for its clarity!!

 

[MonteRCMS]

5. Free Speech
Liberals have always stood for the principle that each person has the right to their own ideas and they will defend to the death the right of each to speak their thoughts. Liberals have always been passionately committed to free speech. Protecting what you and I consider hate speech is the entire point of free speech, for a liberal.
Leftists have undertaken a campaign to restrict the speech of anyone they claim to be spouting “hate speech.” Universities, large social media companies, various left-leaning organizations, leftist politicians, and public sector unions have pushed for the suppression of speech. “Hate” speech, in the final analysis, is anything that differs from the leftist’s position.

6. Western Civilization
Liberals champion and seek to protect western civilization and its unique contributions to morality, philosophy, the arts, music and the literary fields. These were taught and promoted at every major liberal university and college in the United States.
Leftists are seeking to destroy the legacy of western civilization, claiming that it is no better than any other civilization. They also claim western civilization is just a euphemism for white supremacy and/or the patriarchy.

So if liberalism and leftism are so opposed to each other, why don’t liberals oppose the left?

Prager suggests that it is because liberals have been taught from very young to fear the right, which is why that bogeyman is brought up – far right, aka “fascism” – to paralyze any liberal who so much as hints at disagreements with current leftist ideology.

The six part Prager University Youtube is outstanding.

click here google youtube liberal leftist

I don’t know where you found the transcript, unless you transcribed it yourself … but it’s outstanding.

 

[MarlboroMan]

William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan.

Neither were all that “conservative” to be perfectly honest. They were status quo liberals who had some right-wing tendencies.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

[
The Prayer University Youtube is OUTSTANDING …particularly for its clarity!!

It is not a university.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan.

Neither were all that “conservative” to be perfectly honest. They were status quo liberals who had some right-wing tendencies.

Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[Inisfallen]

If you are free to determine the meaning of liberal or leftist, then why complain when others assume a bit of leeway regarding what is or is not “polite” or a “personal attack.”

I haven’t claimed that I’m free to determine what the meanings of “liberal,” or “leftist,” are. I’ve just declined to engage with you in a debate about those meanings, or to endorse Dennis Prager’s definitions of the terms.

Does “polite” have a strict definition or not?

In this case, the only definition that matters is that of the CAF moderators. Your definition is irrelevant.

And the impression remains that the reason you don’t is because by Prager’s depictions you come across not as a “centrist liberal,” as you claimed but as a flaming leftist, which is why you prefer to #slinkaway without leaving a trail.

This struck me as impolite. I refrained from flagging it, but it might strike the moderators the same way.

Also, I have no idea what your hashtag signifies, but I’m not bothering to check. Twitter isn’t my thing.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, Democratic leaders in those communities may be imperfect but if your tax base is minimal, wouldn’t you agree there isn’t much capacity to address
critical issues, particularly when circumstances like deindustrialization which caused substantial job losses (and destroyed the tax base) and white flight that led to social and economic stratification and isolation are uncontrollable?

Perhaps the loss of tax base is due in large part to confiscatory and punitive tax polices imposed by progressives. If you raise tax rates too high, people will, rightfully, leave your jurisdiction to escape said taxes. This escape is often both by private individuals as well as business and industry, further depleting the tax base. This leaving isn’t simply “whites”, but anyone who wishes to escape confiscatory taxation.

Secondly, the depression generation is evidence that low income and lack of government resources necessarily leads to criminality.

 

[Inisfallen]

Oh, I quite agree that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past, and that Republicans today are more conservative than in the past. That has been going on since before Trump.

Do you think that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past? I think that’s certainly true when it comes to social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, are the neoliberals in the Clintonian mold more liberal than, say, Lyndon Johnson? I’d say no. Neoliberals (who have been the dominant faction within liberalism since the nineties) have, for example, more or less consigned organized labor to a policy of benign neglect and ended welfare as we knew it.

I couldn’t agree more that conservatism has moved rightwards, though – earlier in this thread, someone said that Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan were “status quo liberals.” It wasn’t that long ago that those two were the leading lights of American conservatism.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, I quite agree that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past, and that Republicans today are more conservative than in the past. That has been going on since before Trump.

I disagree. I believe Democrats today are less liberal. They are more and more progressive, and therefore less and less liberal. Prager explains it very well.
On the other hand, Republicans are, by and large, less conservative if we recognize conservatism as adhering to the constitution. Even though Trump has pleasantly surprised by the level of conservatism in his policies, he still often acts on the impulse of big government.

 

[MonteRCMS]

It is not a university.

They identify as a University.

PragerU Shop

You can now let the world know you support PragerU AND free speech with PragerU merchandise. Spreading the message of Americanism to millions of people has never been easier!

shop.prageru.com

Prager University Foundation 10045 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 250 Owings Mills, MD 21117 info@prageru.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Oh, I quite agree that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past, and that Republicans today are more conservative than in the past. That has been going on since before Trump.

I disagree. I believe Democrats today are less liberal. They are more and more progressive, and therefore less and less liberal. Prager explains it very well.
On the other hand, Republicans are, by and large, less conservative if we recognize conservatism as adhering to the constitution. Even though Trump has pleasantly surprised by the level of conservatism in his policies, he still often acts on the impulse of big government.

Well, as long as you insist on using Prager’s definitions, nothing you say about labels applied to Democrats or Republicans really matter, do they?

LeafByNiggle:

It is not a university.

They identify as a University.

And I can identify as the King of France. That doesn’t make me King.

 

[Inisfallen]

And I can identify as the King of France. That doesn’t make me King.

Louis? Is that you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And I can identify as the King of France. That doesn’t make me King.

Louis? Is that you?

Oui bien sûr.

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, as long as you insist on using Prager’s definitions, nothing you say about labels applied to Democrats or Republicans really matter, do they?

And I can identify as the King of France. That doesn’t make me King.

Inisfallen:

Louis? Is that you?

Oui bien sûr.

As long as you insist on identifying as the King of France, nothing you have to say about the matter in this thread, really matters, does it?

We can safely dismiss anything you have to say on the matter at hand.

It is an interesting sociological phenomenon to see how serious points can be tritely dismissed on pretexts and derailed by inane trivialities.

I suppose those who are persuaded by such nonsense will buy into the fraud, but those who seriously want to understand the issue will not be fooled.

The thoughtful clarity of Haidt and Prager stand in stark opposition to the handwaving from those who call themselves “centrist liberals,” or whatever else they dream themselves to be.

 

[HarryStotle]

MarlboroMan:

LeafByNiggle:

William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan.

Neither were all that “conservative” to be perfectly honest. They were status quo liberals who had some right-wing tendencies.

Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

What?

Are you claiming that no true Scotsman would be a status quo liberal or that none would have right-wing tendencies?

Or are you claiming that no true status quo liberal could possibly have some right-wing tendencies?

Or that there is no such thing as a Scotsman?

No status quo liberal?

Just where, precisely, are you going with this, Louis?