How Socially Liberal are You?

[vcczar 1,224]

New poll. Feel free to elaborate below and to add anything new that I couldn't fit in this poll, as I was confined to only 20 parts per question. 

[SilentLiberty 219]

Not a fan of how conversativism is dressed up as being bad mean and racist. Prime Minister Trudeau would have you know racism and racist actions can even come from the very people who claim to be so against it. 

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

7 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Not a fan of how conversativism is dressed up as being bad mean and racist. Prime Minister Trudeau would have you know racism and racist actions can even come from the very people who claim to be so against it. 

True, I was never a fan of Trudeau. He seems just slimy and not likeable to me. Actions like the one in the link I am going to share make my impression even more convinced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/07/justin-trudeau-tells-woman-to-say-peoplekind-not-mankind

[SilentLiberty 219]

2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

True, I was never a fan of Trudeau. He seems just slimy and not likeable to me. Actions like the one in the link I am going to share make my impression even more convinced.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/07/justin-trudeau-tells-woman-to-say-peoplekind-not-mankind

Yeah, it is kind of like the kid in high school who accused everyone of being gay and made provocative comments about it until later when he comes out gay a couple years after graduation. The only issue in that situation is that the kid used being gay to belittle others.

In this instance Trudeau is screaming out how open and accepting he is while he actually seems to be a closet racist(well I guess maybe it's not as hidden as that...)

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Yeah, it is kind of like the kid in high school who accused everyone of being gay and made provocative comments about it until later when he comes out gay a couple years after graduation. The only issue in that situation is that the kid used being gay to belittle others.

In this instance Trudeau is screaming out how open and accepting he is while he actually seems to be a closet racist(well I guess maybe it's not as hidden as that...)

Absolutely true.

[vcczar 1,224]

23 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Not a fan of how conversativism is dressed up as being bad mean and racist. Prime Minister Trudeau would have you know racism and racist actions can even come from the very people who claim to be so against it. 

This poll is more about government legislation than behavior. LBJ was certainly somewhat racist too and he was the driving force behind the Civil Rights bill. 

[SilentLiberty 219]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This poll is more about government legislation than behavior. LBJ was certainly somewhat racist too and he was the driving force behind the Civil Rights bill. 

The maybe some of the wording should have been better and less one sided.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

It's funny, yesterday I thought making a poll on how conservative this forum is. Like presenting 20 top conservative issues (is 20 the maximum for one question, I'll need to find out) and looking who supports what.

[SilentLiberty 219]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This poll is more about government legislation than behavior. LBJ was certainly somewhat racist too and he was the driving force behind the Civil Rights bill. 

 

Just now, SilentLiberty said:

The maybe some of the wording should have been better and less one sided.

For instance "I'm socially liberal primarily because I find social conservatives either racist, ignorant, selfish, backward, or otherwise repellent, even if I don't always side with my fellow social liberals." If that is why you are socially liberal I think it says more about you than social conservatives. 

[vcczar 1,224]

Just now, SilentLiberty said:

 

For instance "I'm socially liberal primarily because I find social conservatives either racist, ignorant, selfish, backward, or otherwise repellent, even if I don't always side with my fellow social liberals." If that is why you are socially liberal I think it says more about you than social conservatives. 

Yeah, it could be. I didn't check that one as I only feel that way about some social conservatives rather than most of them. I do confess to a lack of tolerance to socially conservative policies, but some hold those view for fiscal reasons, rather than reasons of White Supremacy or Theocratic reasons. I don't approve of social conservatism that is reinforced by white supremacy or by religious doctrine, when we are both a nation of equality and a secular nation of no established religion. However, there are times when religion and universal law overlap. 

[SilentLiberty 219]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, it could be. I didn't check that one as I only feel that way about some social conservatives rather than most of them. I do confess to a lack of tolerance to socially conservative policies, but some hold those view for fiscal reasons, rather than reasons of White Supremacy or Theocratic reasons. I don't approve of social conservatism that is reinforced by white supremacy or by religious doctrine, when we are both a nation of equality and a secular nation of no established religion. However, there are times when religion and universal law overlap. 

Do you feel any lack of tolerance toward social liberals, because some of them are pedophiles? Or how about Ed Buck? Does he make you have any feelings of resentment toward social liberals? Does this go both ways or is it really just one sided here?

[SilentLiberty 219]

9 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

It's funny, yesterday I thought making a poll on how conservative this forum is. Like presenting 20 top conservative issues (is 20 the maximum for one question, I'll need to find out) and looking who supports what.

You should do this, I think some people would surprise themselves.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

3 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

You should do this, I think some people would surprise themselves.

I'll do later  

[vcczar 1,224]

13 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Do you feel any lack of tolerance toward social liberals, because some of them are pedophiles? Or how about Ed Buck? Does he make you have any feelings of resentment toward social liberals? Does this go both ways or is it really just one sided here?

Well, there’s a difference. Pedophilia, marital affairs, corruption isn’t based one a socially liberal or conservative spectrum. It’s individual. So a pedophiles political views would have no bearing on my views of their politics. However, someone opposing civil rights legislation on the grounds of racists beliefs would since their personal flaw and politics are merged in this regard. What would have to happen would be social liberals enforcing, defending, and expanding on the rights of those wishing to be active pedophiles. 

You’re argument that you are making needs to be a little more in line with politics. That’s like me opposing social liberalism because Trudeau has racist tendencies. I can dislike him now but I’ll dislike his ideology once those racist views are part of his politics agenda. 

If I were a Canadian, and my choice was racist, but socially liberal Trudeau vs, upstanding, not racist conservative but with an agenda that is racist, I’d vote for Trudeau, who I will still dislike, but whose agenda protects, defends, and expands on civil rights and civil equalities, in this hypothetical. 

As stated, I draw a clear line between social conservatives that are such for fiscal reasons and those that are because of reasons of supremacy (racism), religion (bigotry), or to reinforce the gap between rich and poor. I think anyone supporting legislation for these last three reasons is both an awful person and an awful American, and unpatriotic too. 

[SilentLiberty 219]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Well, there’s a difference. Pedophilia, marital affairs, corruption isn’t based one a socially liberal or conservative spectrum. It’s individual. So a pedophiles political views would have no bearing on my views of their politics. However, someone opposing civil rights legislation on the grounds of racists beliefs would since their personal flaw and politics are merged in this regard. What would have to happen would be social liberals enforcing, defending, and expanding on the rights of those wishing to be active pedophiles. 

You’re argument that you are making needs to be a little more in line with politics. That’s like me opposing social liberalism because Trudeau has racist tendencies. I can dislike him now but I’ll dislike his ideology once those racist views are part of his politics agenda. 

If I were a Canadian, and my choice was racist, but socially liberal Trudeau vs, upstanding, not racist conservative but with an agenda that is racist, I’d vote for Trudeau, who I will still dislike, but whose agenda protects, defends, and expands on civil rights and civil equalities, in this hypothetical. 

As stated, I draw a clear line between social conservatives that are such for fiscal reasons and those that are because of reasons of supremacy (racism), religion (bigotry), or to reinforce the gap between rich and poor. I think anyone supporting legislation for these last three reasons is both an awful person and an awful American, and unpatriotic too. 

Decreasing the voting age could be equal to deceasing the age considered to be an adult. So while a slippery slope and it's one of the things people don't address as much when discussing lowering the voting age, but there is more to consider there. (It's interesting to me, people want to lower the voting age but also increase the age for tobacco products) So in some ways, they are merged in a similar way. 

Sure it does maybe need to be more in line with politics, but it also isn't really to far outside of it either. I'm mainly making the point that both sides have awful people within them but you are simply targeting one, I don't like when the news does that, I just don't like it in general. Not to mention both sides shit-bags absolutely merge their shit-baggyness in with their political views, and between the two of us we still didn't cover all the people who fall into that spectrum from both sides. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not asking you to make the poll from a nonpartisan or center perspective, I'm not asking you to do anything, I'm just saying that so openly making one side the bad guy is a horrible tactic to use.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 minute ago, SilentLiberty said:

Decreasing the voting age could be equal to deceasing the age considered to be an adult. So while a slippery slope and it's one of the things people don't address as much when discussing lowering the voting age, but there is more to consider there. (It's interesting to me, people want to lower the voting age but also increase the age for tobacco products) So in some ways, they are merged in a similar way. 

Sure it does maybe need to be more in line with politics, but it also isn't really to far outside of it either. I'm mainly making the point that both sides have awful people within them but you are simply targeting one, I don't like when the news does that, I just don't like it in general. Not to mention both sides shit-bags absolutely merge their shit-baggyness in with their political views, and between the two of us we still didn't cover all the people who fall into that spectrum from both sides. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not asking you to make the poll from a nonpartisan or center perspective, I'm not asking you to do anything, I'm just saying that so openly making one side the bad guy is a horrible tactic to use.

I really think you are misreading or overthinking this. The judgments are based on their reasons for support of equality restricting legislation or their refusal to support such legislation. It has nothing to do with their behavior outside of that. 

Someone that opposed the Civil Rights or Voting Rights Act did so because 1) they are racist 2) their constituents are most racist 3) they just don’t like federal encroachment on states rights, but as their states aren’t coming up with their own equivalent civil rights or voting rights bill, they are reinforcing racist state policies. As such, the opposition to these bills is abhorrent and those opposing it are morally lacking. 

I can’t think of a reverse situation in which the social liberals are the bad guys. 

How is Ed Buck’s pedaphilia “not far outside politics?” I’ll add social liberal politics. As far as I understand that’s his own personal mental issue that doesn’t impact social liberal agenda at all. Similarly, Nixon and Clinton’s impeachable scandals had nothing to do with their social agenda policies. They were outside of that. Similarly, much of Trump’s awfulness is separate from the social agenda he pushes. They aren’t reflective of conservatives, but they are reflective of him. His Muslim ban,  wall on Mexico, send them back comments etc are areas in which his  Racism is tied to social conservative agenda. 

A non-racist social conservative like @Reagan04 could support the ban and the wall for reasons other than “keep out those different from us” (I.e strictly for security and safety) and condemn Trump’s comments.

Thus, it’s about the reasons of support. For instance, a liberal is going to support liberal policies for reason of equality and not just to raise taxes on people out of spite. A liberal isn’t going to support abortion just because they want to kill babies. There reason is generally well intentioned, even if fiscally unsound. 

I’d say conservatives are also mostly well intentioned, but it’s much easier for a social conservative to get looped in as a racist or bigot for their views than it is for a liberal to be looped into something equally negative. 

I understand fiscal conservative, but I can’t think of how social conservative views are even remotely helpful, strengthening, wise, or are anyway beneficial to the country or to the world as a whole, except as an alternative viewpoint that thought about and then ignored. For the most part, such views are unnecessary roadblocks that stifle progress. 

[SilentLiberty 219]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I really think you are misreading or overthinking this. The judgments are based on their reasons for support of equality restricting legislation or their refusal to support such legislation. It has nothing to do with their behavior outside of that. 

Someone that opposed the Civil Rights or Voting Rights Act did so because 1) they are racist 2) their constituents are most racist 3) they just don’t like federal encroachment on states rights, but as their states aren’t coming up with their own equivalent civil rights or voting rights bill, they are reinforcing racist state policies. As such, the opposition to these bills is abhorrent and those opposing it are morally lacking. 

I can’t think of a reverse situation in which the social liberals are the bad guys. 

How is Ed Buck’s pedaphilia “not far outside politics?” I’ll add social liberal politics. As far as I understand that’s his own personal mental issue that doesn’t impact social liberal agenda at all. Similarly, Nixon and Clinton’s impeachable scandals had nothing to do with their social agenda policies. They were outside of that. Similarly, much of Trump’s awfulness is separate from the social agenda he pushes. They aren’t reflective of conservatives, but they are reflective of him. His Muslim ban,  wall on Mexico, send them back comments etc are areas in which his  Racism is tied to social conservative agenda. 

A non-racist social conservative like @Reagan04 could support the ban and the wall for reasons other than “keep out those different from us” (I.e strictly for security and safety) and condemn Trump’s comments.

Thus, it’s about the reasons of support. For instance, a liberal is going to support liberal policies for reason of equality and not just to raise taxes on people out of spite. A liberal isn’t going to support abortion just because they want to kill babies. There reason is generally well intentioned, even if fiscally unsound. 

I’d say conservatives are also mostly well intentioned, but it’s much easier for a social conservative to get looped in as a racist or bigot for their views than it is for a liberal to be looped into something equally negative. 

I understand fiscal conservative, but I can’t think of how social conservative views are even remotely helpful, strengthening, wise, or are anyway beneficial to the country or to the world as a whole, except as an alternative viewpoint that thought about and then ignored. For the most part, such views are unnecessary roadblocks that stifle progress. 

Now you are just arguing which side is morally right, saying that liberals mainly do things for the right reason. That's an opinion. I think you completely missed my point in trying to say I was the one over thinking it. 

[vcczar 1,224]

21 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Now you are just arguing which side is morally right, saying that liberals mainly do things for the right reason. That's an opinion. I think you completely missed my point in trying to say I was the one over thinking it. 

I guess I do think liberals are more morally right than conservatives. 

If I missed your point it’s because it wasn’t clear to me what you were saying and I misunderstood it. So you may want to rephrase what you were saying.  

[SilentLiberty 219]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I guess I do think liberals are more morally right than conservatives. 

If I missed your point it’s because it wasn’t clear to me what you were saying and I misunderstood it. So you may want to rephrase what you were saying.  

My point hasn't changed though, it could get bogged down, but to sum it up, like my first comment said. I'm not a fan of the conservative view points being painted as bad. When I did that though the debate somehow became about the actual policies in question hah, which is fine sure, but not what my point was.

Really what it boils down to is that you paint a negative picture for Republicans or conservative view points. Now you have admitted you view the liberals as more morally right, and you by your own admission are more in favor of liberal policies. I don't have a problem with either of those things. I just really don't like how you have the ability of just putting the liberal view points down without any outside context or trying to expose underlying motives, literally just put the context of the policies, yet when you get to the opposite view point you find it necessary to bring in outside context, expose underlying motives, and basically shame them for being 'morally wrong'. Even in the other poll post you did it "I’m often shocked that anyone would even support a selection of some of these." Shocked? Why? Why is it hard to see that people have a different view point to you? And what is so bad about that? I would guess if someone said they were shocked about people supporting liberal viewpoints, you would be willing to inform them about how they were wrong. (Assuming they aren't just trolling of course.) But how can they be wrong when most of these things are subjective, especially what one person holds as morals. Conservatives would argue they are morally superior, especially, especially, the religious right. Yet are they really morally superior? No, because morality is subjective. 

46 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I understand fiscal conservative, but I can’t think of how social conservative views are even remotely helpful, strengthening, wise, or are anyway beneficial to the country or to the world as a whole, except as an alternative viewpoint that thought about and then ignored. For the most part, such views are unnecessary roadblocks that stifle progress. 

I'm sure they feel the same. Isn't that funny? Feeling. Another thing that is subjective.

49 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’d say conservatives are also mostly well intentioned, but it’s much easier for a social conservative to get looped in as a racist or bigot for their views than it is for a liberal to be looped into something equally negative. 

You know again with the shaming, and that is how Drew Brees recently got shamed for encouraging kids to bring a bible to school on bring a bible to school day. He then would come out and be a strong advocate for LGBTQ+ community because he said his Christian views show that all people have value and are equal. So yeah there was good intent then, but because people are so okay with shaming people for the beliefs he got looped in as a bigot. As I've said there is absolute awful people on both sides, I do not fail to see that. I fail how to see how it is so acceptable to shame one side and then play the "Well it's just easier for a social conservative to get looped in as a ..."  card. And you know what I agree it is easier for them, because there are people who are openly racist sure, but it's also easier to loop them into that group because people have accepted it's okay to so unquestionably.

You are really good at basing things logically and soundly, like really good at it, so why do you also resort to being like Fox News and just try to shame the opposite view point? I'd think you'd be able to see why I have a problem with that. It's not like you are trying to troll, I absolutely believe you're being genuine just like I'm being genuine too. So to restate my point is the conservative view points being painted as bad, and I guess it's more or less because the underlying issue that I believe you are above doing something like that.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, SilentLiberty said:

My point hasn't changed though, it could get bogged down, but to sum it up, like my first comment said. I'm not a fan of the conservative view points being painted as bad. When I did that though the debate somehow became about the actual policies in question hah, which is fine sure, but not what my point was.

Really what it boils down to is that you paint a negative picture for Republicans or conservative view points. Now you have admitted you view the liberals as more morally right, and you by your own admission are more in favor of liberal policies. I don't have a problem with either of those things. I just really don't like how you have the ability of just putting the liberal view points down without any outside context or trying to expose underlying motives, literally just put the context of the policies, yet when you get to the opposite view point you find it necessary to bring in outside context, expose underlying motives, and basically shame them for being 'morally wrong'. Even in the other poll post you did it "I’m often shocked that anyone would even support a selection of some of these." Shocked? Why? Why is it hard to see that people have a different view point to you? And what is so bad about that? I would guess if someone said they were shocked about people supporting liberal viewpoints, you would be willing to inform them about how they were wrong. (Assuming they aren't just trolling of course.) But how can they be wrong when most of these things are subjective, especially what one person holds as morals. Conservatives would argue they are morally superior, especially, especially, the religious right. Yet are they really morally superior? No, because morality is subjective. 

I'm sure they feel the same. Isn't that funny? Feeling. Another thing that is subjective.

You know again with the shaming, and that is how Drew Brees recently got shamed for encouraging kids to bring a bible to school on bring a bible to school day. He then would come out and be a strong advocate for LGBTQ+ community because he said his Christian views show that all people have value and are equal. So yeah there was good intent then, but because people are so okay with shaming people for the beliefs he got looped in as a bigot. As I've said there is absolute awful people on both sides, I do not fail to see that. I fail how to see how it is so acceptable to shame one side and then play the "Well it's just easier for a social conservative to get looped in as a ..."  card. And you know what I agree it is easier for them, because there are people who are openly racist sure, but it's also easier to loop them into that group because people have accepted it's okay to so unquestionably.

You are really good at basing things logically and soundly, like really good at it, so why do you also resort to being like Fox News and just try to shame the opposite view point? I'd think you'd be able to see why I have a problem with that. It's not like you are trying to troll, I absolutely believe you're being genuine just like I'm being genuine too. So to restate my point is the conservative view points being painted as bad, and I guess it's more or less because the underlying issue that I believe you are above doing something like that.

I am not painting a negative picture of Republicans it conservatives, only social conservatives, who have at time been Democrats but are now mostly Republicans or 3rd party. I respect many Republicans or fiscal conservatives. 

I wouldn’t say that my “painting” of social conservatives is akin to Fox spin, as I’m bouncing my opinions on legislation and allowing for the possibility that some vote for social conservatism for reasons other than hate or a perverted sense that some people should have more rights that others. 

[vcczar 1,224]

Should say “than” others. My eyes still aren’t back to normal after surgery yet and didn’t see the autocorrect 

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

Imagine being such an America-hating cuck that you view the word 'patriotism' negatively.

[Patine 467]

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

New poll. Feel free to elaborate below and to add anything new that I couldn't fit in this poll, as I was confined to only 20 parts per question. 

I'm afraid I have a similar issue with your poll as I just brought up with @Conservative Elector 2's, but as an ideological flipside, in this case.

12 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Imagine being such an America-hating cuck that you view the word 'patriotism' negatively.

The term "Patriot," by definition, refers to an insurgent or rebel fighting, military, for "home and country" against tyranny, usually external tyranny. It is not, again by definition, a term really valid in peacetime (as in the independence of said nation is not in danger - NOT referring to "wartime" as military adventurism abroad) and while the nation is fully sovereign and self-governing. It is a term analogous by meaning to "freedom fighter," or "revolutionary," not MERELY loyal, proud citizen. Also, the term was not coined by, or first used by Americans, either. It is a Greek word, and was used by a Greek uprising on the island of Crete against the Ottoman Turks (who controlled all Greek lands back then) in the 1760's. Even though it was crushed, it was a great inspiration, especially as Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Pericles (the creator of democracy as a form of government) and Plato (who first wrote the idealistic treatise of governance, "The Republic), that, later in the 18th Century, the term "Patriot" was adopted in solidarity and honorific by the American and French Revolutionaries and the Irish "Patriot" Parliament. The More You Know, @ThePotatoWalrus

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm afraid I have a similar issue with your poll as I just brought up with @Conservative Elector 2's, but as an ideological flipside, in this case.

The term "Patriot," by definition, refers to an insurgent or rebel fighting, military, for "home and country" against tyranny, usually external tyranny. It is not, again by definition, a term really valid in peacetime (as in the independence of said nation is not in danger - NOT referring to "wartime" as military adventurism abroad) and while the nation is fully sovereign and self-governing. It is a term analogous by meaning to "freedom fighter," or "revolutionary," not MERELY loyal, proud citizen. Also, the term was not coined by, or first used by Americans, either. It is a Greek word, and was used by a Greek uprising on the island of Crete against the Ottoman Turks (who controlled all Greek lands back then) in the 1760's. Even though it was crushed, it was a great inspiration, especially as Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Pericles (the creator of democracy as a form of government) and Plato (who first wrote the idealistic treatise of governance, "The Republic), that, later in the 18th Century, the term "Patriot" was adopted in solidarity and honorific by the American and French Revolutionaries and the Irish "Patriot" Parliament. The More You Know, @ThePotatoWalrus

Patriot (noun)
pā-trē-ət

Definition: one who loves and supports his or her country

Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot

[darkmoon72 2]

I myself prefer "social democracy" over "democratic socialism" and wished the phrase was included in this poll.

Some may see this as mere semantics or even window dressing, but I see the two as having very distinct and important differences. 

I'm happy to elaborate on the differences if needed, but I think the below article sums it up fairly well.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/democratic-socialism-social-democracy-nordic-countries