Like something you might not understand about traditional John Locke Liberalism is that he lived in a world with an abundance of free land to anyone who wanted to settle it
So yeah property rights were sacred
But what happens when all the land is already owned? What good is that right now?
When you start asking these questions you arrive at the next evolution of Liberalism
Not only that, but a world where wilderness was seen as a waste, and where settled land, which had been altered and made useful to humans, was the only worthwhile land.
The Batlord
03-30-2017 01:20 PM
Yeah I might not be much of a socialist, but I still understand that capitalism presumes a world that it can infinitely exploit.
riseagainstrocks
03-30-2017 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
(Post 1817632)
Conservatism is the NEW Counter-Culture
So PJW and the InfoWars brigade get into a fight with their ideological opposites on twitter and tumblr and think he's winning a "culture war" because of his anecdotal data of being buried in positive messages from teenagers.
Got it.
Culture is certainly shifting, but at as long as Republicans, and by extension, the alt-right, consider themselves a bulwark against godless liberalism, Islamic degeneracy, and all the other buzzwords and phrases they use, aren't they claiming the center of Western culture? Using his phraseology, it seems they, by definition can't be a "counter-culture" as they're attempting to reclaim a "pure" culture as opposed to one that's been polluted by outsiders. In his view, liberalism is counter to American culture - popularity of the movement is irrelevant, especially considering the 'reclamation' identity Trumpism has engendered.
What I don't understand is how people like yourself (nonsense myopia trolling aside, you make generally interesting/cogent posts) can't separate the hysterical hyperbole of the SJWs, who I agree are obnoxious and borderline totalitarian, from the core of the animating issue, namely social libertarianism. Individual freedom to marry. Check. Individual freedom to identify as male, female, other, Check. Individual freedom to congregate with people who think like you and have discussions, marches, parties, prayer groups, etc. Check.
It's like PJW and large swaths of his fan base have seen a couple YouTube videos featuring women calling for male genocide and have determined that every self-identified liberal/feminist agrees with that; which is absolute nonsense. I'm happy to debate policy with anyone, but I'm tired of being lumped in with a vanishingly small minority of "liberals" so wrapped up in identity politics that they have become the very thing they purportedly oppose.
If you have an element of PJW's philosophy that you agree with and would like to discuss, I'd be happy to. My experience is anecdotal to be sure, but there seems to be a malicious glee taken in upsetting other people. I see the movement as one of disaffection, filled with personal grievances and lashing out at those formerly in "power" (cue *liberaltears.meme*). What am I missing?
