# The Problems With Liberalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341 "2009-10-19T15:49:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/181 "2009-10-24T00:30:56Z")
> [@zen101](#): > > I’m pretty sure that slavery had a lot do to with disrupting the family structures of blacks in this country early on. What with people being sold off and all. Good griefin’ fuck! What the hell does that have to do with family structures in the black community now vs. fifty and sixty years ago, which **Shodan** pointed to upthread? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/182 "2009-10-24T13:35:09Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Good griefin’ fuck! What the hell does that have to do with family structures in the black community now vs. fifty and sixty years ago, which **Shodan** pointed to upthread? He didn’t read the thread. 😉 > [@Shodan](#): > > The other side is supposed to try and prove that they are not racists. Then the Usual Suspects, on and off the SDMB, simply ignore everything they say and repeat the charge over and over. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Which is why I said: > > > [@](#): > > > > I won’t call it racist, but let’s just say it’s odd, and seems to require some sort of explanation, that you should make an argument about the disintegration of marriage, yet only talk about blacks. > > My point being that the most obvious explanation for such a choice would be some sort of race-related bias in the way one views the world. Maybe you don’t have to prove that you were viewing the world with such a bias, but yeah: you’ve got to give some alternative explanation, otherwise what’s a reasonable person to believe? **Exactly**. The reason I gave is indeed the reason why you posted it and why you repeated it. For the first time in recent memory, a liberal is being completely truthful about his tactics and motivations. You realized you were losing the debate, and played the racist card in an attempt at an [ad hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) to change the subject. And ignored everything else and repeated the charge, exactly as described. Thank you for your honesty. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/183 "2009-10-24T17:48:52Z")
I’m going to (belatedly) move this from The BBQ Pit to Great Debates. As always, \*\*Tom \*\*is free to overrule me and move it back. **Gfactor** Pit Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/184 "2009-10-25T11:14:40Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Oooooh! Score! Except not. The Sokal Affair is a well-recognized consequence of scientific relativism…and roundly ridiculed by the average progressive. No points for you. Did you actually read the cite? It supports exactly the opposite of what you suggest; it was an experiment triggered by a hypothesis about the academic left. Or are they not “average,” or “averagely progressive,” so now we’ll get into several rounds of semantic nit-picking? > [@](#): > > Sokal produced a paper that argued that quantum gravity has progressive political implications, and that Rupert Sheldrake’s New Age concept of the “morphogenetic field” could be a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. It concludes that, since “physical ‘reality’ … is at bottom a social and linguistic construct”, a “liberatory science” and “emancipatory mathematics” must be developed that spurn “the elite caste canon of ‘high science’” for a “postmodern science [that] provide[s] powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project”. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/185 "2009-10-25T13:31:08Z")
Curiosity finally got the better of me and I dropped in on the thread. (WTF could they still be talking about?) The only problem with Liberals is that they have become every bit the corporate whores as their partners in crime across the aisle. What made Liberalism possible was TV. The underside of America was exposed and the Liberals muscled in by championing the underdogs and gained corporate acknowledgment. These days, corporate media consolidation makes sure we don’t get too close a look at the downside of corporate policies and keeps the debate focused on the seeming Liberal/Conservative slugfest where “incivility” guarantees you airtime. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341.md?page=9)