Stupid Ideas Generally Held by Liberals

[Shagnasty]

@Aeschines

I consider myself to be left of Liberal, and there is a lot of thinking on the Left that is impractical and stupid. A lot of it seems to consist of:

1. Whining about problems but proposing no solutions, as though merely having the right thoughts and intentions were enough.

2. Shaming those who don’t agree, just because.

Climate change is one such area. It’s horrible because:

1. Liberals talk stupidly and inaccurately about the science. They frame the debate as obviousness vs. idiocy, when it is anything but. They also mush the scientific and political aspects of the debate into an intractable congeries (this last complaint applies to many Conservatives as well, however).

2. They try to shame anyone who disagrees as a “denier” unworthy of respect, without recognizing any nuance in various positions.

3. They propose no practical solutions of any sort. Or provide any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

4. They seem content to lose on this issue just so long as they can bitch about Conservatives, etc. And it’s this way on a lot of issues.

I’m a leftie but I eschew the label “Liberal” or even “Progressive,” as I associate them with a whole lotta pissing and moaning and never getting anything done. Like Obama (who is a coopted crypto-Conservative at this point, but I digress…).

Excellent points even though I am probably not on the same end of the political spectrum as you. I think it applies to people of most political persuasions but somehow many liberals seem to think they are above those criticisms and immune to them more than most.

I especially like the idea of proposing a different solution and cost/benefit analysis any time a specific complaint is made. Those are ones that I apply in my personal and professional life even for the smallest issues. If you complain about something, you better have a proposal to fix it even if it is rough and somewhat vague because, otherwise, it is just pointless bitching. If you have a solution in mind, you need to have a good grasp on how much it will cost (in total terms, not just money), because there are acknowledged problems that just aren’t worth fixing because of the total costs involved.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@flight

You would need data to say that the first one is not good and it would need to be overwhelming for this to count as a stupid liberal idea. Modern art is subject to taste and condemning it as a whole would better count as a stupid conservative idea. When you say, “morally equivalent” you are by definition speaking of morals and therefore cannot mark something as just blatantly stupidly incorrect.

I think the failures of race-based affirmative action are fairly evident-it tends to benefit upper/middle-class blacks (and Hispanics) while doing little to benefit those in actual poverty. On a political level, it alienates the white working-class which has to be a critical component of any Democratic coalition.

[Diceman]

Here’s one I haven’t seen mentioned yet: the tendancy to demonize a whole company because of its owner’s political views seems to be far more common among liberals. There might be a few conservatives who boycott Disney because they extend benefits to same-sex partners, or Turner Broadcasting because Ted Turner is a big liberal, but they don’t exist in significant numbers. On the other hand, Walmart is eeeeeeevil because its owners are conservative, and people boycot companies owned by the Koch brothers because they don’t support gay marriage.

[jtur88]

That Indians care if you call them Indians.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Diceman

Here’s one I haven’t seen mentioned yet: the tendancy to demonize a whole company because of its owner’s political views seems to be far more common among liberals. There might be a few conservatives who boycott Disney because they extend benefits to same-sex partners, or Turner Broadcasting because Ted Turner is a big liberal, but they don’t exist in significant numbers. On the other hand, Walmart is eeeeeeevil because its owners are conservative, and people boycot companies owned by the Koch brothers because they don’t support gay marriage.

The Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and a dozen other groups organized an eight year boycott of Disney. That’s not “a few conservatives”.

[TruCelt]

Whenever I hear someone going off on how all life is sacred and no one should ever be executed by the State, I look them in the eye and ask “Have you ever experienced a psychopath?” I already know the answer.

There are people who are irredeemable; they are cold, heartless predators who find our concern for each other amusing. When they hear about normal people having an attack of conscience they recognize an opportunity for manipulation, and consider this to be a disability they have been fortunately spared.

Is is execution overused? Yes. But the idea that there are no appropriate cases for it strikes me as a lucky ignorance.

[flight]

Thanks for all of the responses, but we are getting a bit off-topic. A lot of these are just “bitching about liberals” rather than actual illogical and unsupported beliefs. Also, anything with two reasonable sides, even if one of the sides has stronger data, do not count. I am looking for stupid beliefs, not probably wrong beliefs.

Also, habits like boycotting are a bit closer, but not what I am looking for. Maybe if we showed that boycotts did nothing, including rallying support to your cause or reinforcing resolve among followers, then that might count, but I do not see us being able to so.

Also, a lot of these are self-evidently liberal issues, but I thought ant-vaccine was too. If anyone knows of polls or other data we could look at to show that some of these views are primarily liberal that would really help.

[AHunter3]

@Bozuit

I consider myself a liberal, but there’s something some other self-described liberals do that really gets on my nerves. It’s not an idea so much as a lack of thought. Some people have clearly been brought up with liberal ideals, but without thinking much for themselves. The result is people who will defend a popular piece of liberal doctrine, seemingly to the death, but are unable to arrive at liberal conclusions themselves. One example is the “liberals” who are sure racism, or sexism, or “pro-life”, etc. is bad, but their way of dealing with it is to act like a fascist towards those with opposing views, perhaps shouting them down, or destroying signs.

^^^ This, a thousand times over. Kneejerk unthinking opacity.

[Pixel_Dent]

@Shagnasty

I especially like the idea of proposing a different solution and cost/benefit analysis any time a specific complaint is made. Those are ones that I apply in my personal and professional life even for the smallest issues.

A very liberal friend of mine recently sent this along to me with a note saying, “This is why I’m sometimes embarrassed by other liberals.” It’s from an article about rising property taxes in Austin…

“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore.”

[even_sven]

@Diceman

Here’s one I haven’t seen mentioned yet: the tendancy to demonize a whole company because of its owner’s political views seems to be far more common among liberals. There might be a few conservatives who boycott Disney because they extend benefits to same-sex partners, or Turner Broadcasting because Ted Turner is a big liberal, but they don’t exist in significant numbers. On the other hand, Walmart is eeeeeeevil because its owners are conservative, and people boycot companies owned by the Koch brothers because they don’t support gay marriage.

I don’t think the problem is the stance, as much as the large campaign contributions. I don’t really care if you are against gay marriage, but if I get the impression that my money is going directly to politicians that would like to cause harm to me and my family, I’m really going to try to avoid giving you money.

[Bricker]

@TruCelt

Whenever I hear someone going off on how all life is sacred and no one should ever be executed by the State, I look them in the eye and ask “Have you ever experienced a psychopath?” I already know the answer.

There are people who are irredeemable; they are cold, heartless predators who find our concern for each other amusing. When they hear about normal people having an attack of conscience they recognize an opportunity for manipulation, and consider this to be a disability they have been fortunately spared.

Is is execution overused? Yes. But the idea that there are no appropriate cases for it strikes me as a lucky ignorance.

I say that in this country, in this time period, there are no appropriate cases for it. Let’s say I accept your contention: there are people who are irredeemable; they are cold, heartless predators who find our concern for each other amusing, and nothing will ever spark any humanity in them.

(I don’t. But let’s say.)

Then confinement for life is appropriate. Why is killing such a person acceptable?

[ElvisL1ves]

@TruCelt

There are people who are irredeemable; they are cold, heartless predators who find our concern for each other amusing. …Is is execution overused? Yes. But the idea that there are no appropriate cases for it strikes me as a lucky ignorance.

When we do execute such people, what is the evidence that says we aren’t the same as them?

[Anaamika]

@jtur88

That Indians care if you call them Indians.

This E. Indian kind of wishes they weren’t and were called by the proper name, so there would be more clarity if nothing else. I’m not the only one, and as the population of e Indians grows in the US, it may actually become an issue.

[OurLordPeace]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Liberal views on capitalism drive me nuts, and I say this as a liberal. The idea that capitalism is an evil system that screws people is just plain wacky in the face of the evidence. Capitalism, as a system, has done more than any other force in history to raise people out of poverty and increase the standard of living of the masses.

This only is true due to the reforms that were gained after massive, lengthy, arduous, and violent struggle. The US has a very violent labor history, as the capitalists were usually willing to murder in order to preserve their privilege. The kind of boom you’re talking about only arrived after, and due to, these struggles.

[Melbourne]

@flight

I have no idea who either of these groups are. Without background I cannot even tell if this is a criticism of liberals, conservatives, both, or neither.

Sorry. Conciseness is a characteristic error for me. Quadrant is a right-wing publication in AUS. Like all good RW publications, it presents a variety of viewpoints. (Individualism and Libertarianism being RW ideologies)

One of their left-wing competitors Overland has compared the Quadrant editor to a neo-nazi, and is trying to black-ball them. Like all good LW publications, Overland believes that there is strength only in unity, and that conflicting opinons are a sign of cooperation with the enemy.

[flight]

@Melbourne

Sorry. Conciseness is a characteristic error for me. Quadrant is a right-wing publication in AUS. Like all good RW publications, it presents a variety of viewpoints. (Individualism and Libertarianism being RW ideologies)

One of their left-wing competitors Overland has compared the Quadrant editor to a neo-nazi, and is trying to black-ball them. Like all good LW publications, Overland believes that there is strength only in unity, and that conflicting opinons are a sign of cooperation with the enemy.

Wow, in Australia the liberals toe the line and the conservatives are individualistic and fractious? It is like the evil parallel universe version of the United States. Does everyone wear a black goatee there?

[Stringbean]

@OurLordPeace

This only is true due to the reforms that were gained after massive, lengthy, arduous, and violent struggle. The US has a very violent labor history, as the capitalists were usually willing to murder in order to preserve their privilege. The kind of boom you’re talking about only arrived after, and due to, these struggles.

True, we did have a workers’ revolution in the 1920s. And a violent upheaval of the wealthy in the 1790s. Oh wait.

Even during the Depression there was no class-based revolt going on, because capitalism, in its market-based simplicity, destroyed the lives of most wealthy people as well.

It’s important to note the struggles for labor rights and the rightful victories won, but it’s intellectually lazy to say “it wasn’t capitalism that made the West so rich it was organized labor!”

[adaher]

The idea that raising the cost of doing business has no effect on jobs or the economy.

I also remember the unilateral disarmament protests of the 80s. If we get rid of our missiles, the Soviets will get rid of theirs!

[LibrarySpy]

@flight

This is the second time something like this has been mentioned. What, exactly, are you referring to? I don’t see this. If anything, I would have marked this one down on the conservative side.

I was thinking of the 2 Live Crew controversy, but it seems like that was started by a Republican governor. Still, Rap music is bad!11111!!! is often a liberal viewpoint, due to the sexism and violence inherent.

I see that Shodan has taken up the fight.

@flight

This would be something I would like some evidence for, as I have never heard that before.

@New York Times

In other cases the drive to sanitize comes from the left, eager to impose its own multicultural, feminist worldviews and worried about offending religious or ethnic groups. Michael Radford’s 2004 film version of “The Merchant of Venice” (starring Al Pacino) revised the play to elide potentially offensive material, serving up a nicer, more sympathetic Shylock and blunting tough questions about anti-Semitism. More absurdly, a British theater company in 2002 changed the title of its production of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” to “The Bellringer of Notre Dame.”

Here. Banning Huckleberry Finn for using the N-word and having racist themes is a liberal cause, not a conservative cause.

@Trinopus

Liberals are less likely to try to get books removed from libraries.

Cite?

Banned Books List

I would say “racism” or “offensive language” are liberal viewpoints, while banning “sexually explicity” and “unsuited for age group” and “occult” are conservative viewpoints.

[quote=]
The Hunger Games trilogy, by Suzanne Collins
Reasons: anti-ethnic; anti-family; insensitivity; offensive language; occult/satanic; violence
[/quote]

Looks like everyone’s uniting over this one!

Conservatives and liberals have different, perhaps equal, reasons for censoring things. But if I’m a proponent of free speech, I see no reason to diss the stupid conservative reasons but support the stupid liberal reasons.

My username is my cite.

[Diceman]

@adaher

The idea that raising the cost of doing business has no effect on jobs or the economy.

This is what irks me about the current debates regarding raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr sounds like a good idea, until you realize that you’ll end up paying $10 for a cheeseburger at McDonalds. Alternatively, McDonalds might lay off half their workforce and install automated kiosks where customers order & pay. Either way, someone is going to pay.