5 Signs You’re A Regressive Liberal (YouTube video)

[septimus]

@XT

At any rate, if you feel like you can watch the video without blowing a blood vessel, feel free to watch and comment on your impressions. Did/do you think that it’s accurate for a small number of left wingers/liberals or is the video way off base and just another example of conservatives attacking liberals/left wingers?

I’m much closer to centrist than extreme leftist, and watched prepared to believe it might have some validity. I think P.C. goes too far and even (silently) take the side of “Islam is the problem” in some of these threads.

But this YouTube is way over the top; this pundit has catapulted into his own counter-fantasy. “Cancerous Caucasian conspiracy” … “systematic racial barriers don’t actually exist”… This claptrap doesn’t even have the virtue of humor; I couldn’t finish it.

@ XT — your underlying anti-progressive perspective may have some validity. But the fact that you cite this YouTube with anything other than utter contempt reflects poorly on your judgement.

[Stringbean]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I stand by my post.

You should go walk around a college campus for a couple days. It’s far less than a “vanishingly few.”

[friedo]

@Chronos

Liberals can be (and many are) stupid, irrational, hateful, arrogant, or many other negative qualities. “Regressive liberal”, however, is very close to being a contradiction. Why do people who criticize liberals choose the least applicable possible insult?

How do you like “illiberal left?” Because that’s a better name, IMHO, for a lot of what this type of complaint is about.

[Two_Many_Cats]

Third wave feminism has obliterated marriage? So only same sex couples are getting married now?

Yeah, the whole whine about all the bigotry against white men, and especially the comparison with original sin had me rolling my eyes. Anyone who works today can see that white men have nothing to worry about when it comes to affirmative action. I’ve never even seen it used. There are more minorities and women, yeah, but the ones I see do their jobs as well as any white men. I’ve never seen an unqualified person get a position because of their race or sex. So tough, white boy, now you actually have to prove yourself worthy and work hard for that promotion. Boo fucking hoo.

Plenty of white men where I work, and mostly in charge of others. That was true of anywhere I went as a temp. White men are not suffering, people.

[Voyager]

@Two_Many_Cats

Third wave feminism has obliterated marriage? So only same sex couples are getting married now?

Yeah, the whole whine about all the bigotry against white men, and especially the comparison with original sin had me rolling my eyes. Anyone who works today can see that white men have nothing to worry about when it comes to affirmative action. I’ve never even seen it used. There are more minorities and women, yeah, but the ones I see do their jobs as well as any white men. I’ve never seen an unqualified person get a position because of their race or sex. So tough, white boy, now you actually have to prove yourself worthy and work hard for that promotion. Boo fucking hoo.

Plenty of white men where I work, and mostly in charge of others. That was true of anywhere I went as a temp. White men are not suffering, people.

I’m a white male. I am neither suffering or discriminated against. I might be if I was racist, sexist and homophobic. And I I were I’d deserve it.

[Velocity]

@Chronos

“Regressive liberal”, however, is very close to being a contradiction. Why do people who criticize liberals choose the least applicable possible insult?

Because some liberals do indeed support policies that can be described as regressive.
Take the liberals in Iceland who wanted to ban online pornography, or the anti-BDSM law in Canada (even if consensual - it’s long; scroll down to read it), or this anti-free-speech thread from Democratic Underground.
One reason for this is that liberalism is something of a “big tent” ideology these days, and in a big tent you’re bound to have more conflicting or contradictory interests.

[BigT]

@Wesley_Clark

List for people who don’t want to watch a video.

Thanks. This makes it easier to challenge them. I likewise am not a fan of these types of videos, and the deliberate attempts to make liberals who watch it angry.

Do not support freedom of speech when it doesn’t support social agenda

This is just because the Right constantly misuses the term. When it comes to the offensive things they say, it is used to mean that there can be no social consequences to their speech. It means that people don’t have the right to be offended. It misclassifies trying to get people to not be so offensive in their speech as censorship.

Freedom of speech exists so that the ruling power can’t silence the beliefs of the non-ruling power. This is so that democracy can function. None of the people who have fought for freedom of speech in the past meant it to mean that we just have to sit back and accept jerks.

Racist and bigoted (against white heterosexual males)

Surely I don’t have to explain that one. Being for the other groups does not make you against that group. About the only thing of substance is the fact that they keep on using the word “mansplaining,” despite men being offended by it. That’s a “not practicing what they preach” issue among the PC crowd.

You use insults, doxxing, character attacks, etc instead of debating

Some do. But it’s hardly limited to the Left. It makes no sense to try and link that to the Left/Right split.

You like to ban things you find offense (this is really the same as point 1)

I don’t think it quite is. It’s an extension. And the issue there is simply “Only in the same places where that is appropriate.” What it is describing is basically just forum moderation or rules to be in a particular club or group. It’s not describing an attempt to actually ban anything. That, honestly, is more a (Social) Conservative thing to do.

You deny reality (deny that a large minority of muslims support terrorism, that men and women are different, the gender pay gap)

The first one usually refers to not treating Muslims like they are all terrorists or not treating Islam as the cause of terrorism.

Men and women are different, but the differences they cite are exaggerated, and about keeping old gender roles. This is also used to freak out over transgenderism.

And it’s conservatives who try to deny the gender pay gap. They use the fact that there are mitigating factors, without realizing that doesn’t make the gap actually go away.

---

I don’t doubt that there are people on the Left who are dicks. I know some, and I even know places where a bunch congregate. But these complaints are almost always used against something other than what they describe.

[BigT]

@Velocity

tthis anti-free-speech thread from Democratic Underground.

That thread isn’t challenging freedom of speech, but discussing its limits by discussing how it is used in other countries. (And erroneously leaves off U.S. limits, as there are anti-riot rules).

Literally no one thinks freedom of speech is absolute. Where the limits are drawn is a legitimate question. Do you really think we should get rid of libel and slander laws? Get rid of trademarks and copyright? Get rid of “conspiracy to commit” crimes?

Hate speech laws have been accepted in many countries that believe in Freedom of Speech. Even France had them, yet that didn’t stop Je suis Charlie, now did it?

[XT]

Thanks for the responses…they have been illuminating. Just to clear something up here:

[QUOTE=septimus]
@ XT — your underlying anti-progressive perspective may have some validity. But the fact that you cite this YouTube with anything other than utter contempt reflects poorly on your judgement.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not citing this video as anything…I merely was asking for comment on it In dopers Honest Opinion fashion. As I said, the video was sent to me by a friend, and I thought it was interesting enough to post in IMHO to see what 'doper liberals thought of it. Sometimes seeing others responses to something can underscore flaws in the theory or holes in the premise…which is why I brought it here. I knew the video in question was basically going to make some people angry…that’s why I gave warning of that in my OP. I have, however, seen some elements of that video play out here on this board from time to time.

I’m much closer to centrist than extreme leftist, and watched prepared to believe it might have some validity. I think P.C. goes too far and even (silently) take the side of “Islam is the problem” in some of these threads.

But this YouTube is way over the top; this pundit has catapulted into his own counter-fantasy. “Cancerous Caucasian conspiracy” … “systematic racial barriers don’t actually exist”… This claptrap doesn’t even have the virtue of humor; I couldn’t finish it.

Yeah, the video definitely goes off the rails, though humor is one of those things that people vary on wildly. A lot of stuff I find hilarious (politically) my dad hates and just fumes at. I didn’t find much in THIS video humorous and didn’t post it because I thought it was funny or even entertaining, but to see what others thought of it and what they made of the points raised. Having it torn to shreds here is a good sign that, while perhaps some of the points had a bit of merit, the overall theme was flawed. Kind of what I was looking for.

[glowacks]

While I believe that there are liberals who take the idea of being liberal way too far to the point where they lose sight of the reason they are being liberal on that particular issue, none of what this video is talking about according to another poster who summarized it really fits in with the ways in which I see it happening. The main issue with me is that there are some who take “equality of outcome” way too far, and yet this video seems to completely ignore such people.

The points made by this video are spurious.

In particular, conservatives seem to have this idea that if people don’t want something to happen on their property, that’s equivalent to the government banning it. Speech and activity can be suppressed by private citizens all they want so long as certain civil rights are not breached, but if anyone does so conservatives talk about how they have certain rights. The right of you to even be on their property can be revoked; they can certainly reasonably restrict your actions.