My opinion is that RawStory sucks.

The truth is that all of these issues and viewpoints are so much more complex than stupid articles with click-bait links try to make them. But this is the same way with most political/fiscal/social stances, everyone wants to make them binary so as to make it much easier to argue why their "side" is correct, rather than why their nuanced position for a particular issue on a vast left/right spectrum is correct. Yes, someone who general leans towards the fiscally conservative side of various issues is likely to not agree with many of the socially liberal solutions (i.e. spending money and enforcing regulations) suggested to rectify social wrongs in a society. But when you try to just identify people as blanketly "fiscally conservative" and/or "socially liberal", and lazily list the ways in which these ways of thinking are at odds but refuse to acknowledge how every individual is on varying parts of the spectrum for every possible issue, you're not helping the conversation, you're just making it simpler and dumber.

I don't think this article is simplifying people at all.

It starts with the premise that they can hold complex views, and then details where those views may contradict.

Ok, it is one sided in favour of socially progressive/liberal views. But it doesn't just simplfy...

I like the bit where it says low taxes and free markets perpetuate human rights abuses and that conservative policies are racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde.

Great little article. Ridiculously unfair and aggressive bits of journalism like this swell the ranks of the centre right better than any recruiting serjeant plan we have the imagination to come up with. Hell, I didn't even know what an ableist was.

Here's a summary of the article:

"Hey, here are 7 things that, if you're really socially liberal, you would want to throw money and regulations at the issues to solve them. Therefore, all you ' I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal ' people out there are bullshitters about being socially liberal."

Anyone who defines themselves as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" is just as lazily trying to buy into pattern of classifying things, including themselves, as binary-like as possible. You actually sit down and talk about the individual issues and understand which ones have greater pull to the left or right for these people, and why they lean one way or another given the nature of the particular issue, maybe you can have a productive conversation. But many social justice warriors like the author of this article can't be bothered to dive in that deep because it risks ruining their simplistic "aha suck it conservatives!" conclusion that needs to be made in their mind. They keep the argument binary in order to keep the conclusion binary.

Obviously the right is just as guilty of this, but that's not the point, right now we're just addressing this article in particular.

Shows to go you the idiocy of clinging to political labels and obsessing over maintaining their (perceived) purity. And assuming they know what The Enemy (those people who wear the other label) thinks. The result is apparently some serious confusion for some people when labels get mixed - I don't know any fiscally conservative/socially liberal people who are in favor of the drug war, governments generating revenue by punitive fines and penalties, racist police, or domestic violence, for instance.

"Socially liberal" means that I don't really give a shit what you do with your life. If you want to do drugs, go ahead. Want to prostitute your body? Go ahead. Want to marry six people...why the fuck should I care?

"Fiscally Conservative" means --- if you want to do a bunch of shit that I don't agree with, go for it...but keep your fucking hand out of my pocket, because I'm not going to fund your deviancy.

That's not socially liberal Krellin, that's libertarian.

Says who? Who makes you the arbiter of what "socially liberal" is.

Funny thing has happened these days, particularly in youth culture and liberalism....when you don't like something, you simply redefine the terms. Take a commonly understood word, and simply say it means something else.

Now....when you combine the two statements I made, you are probably talking about "libertarians".

I assume that you are going to tell me that "socially liberal" implies how you spend you money. I will tell you that this is wrong. Because that's how *I*, and many, many others, choose to define terms.

I'm socially liberal. I think you should be able to lead your life however the fuck you want. i.e. when it comes to "social issues", I don't really give a fuck you what you do, as long as you stay out of my way, and don't invade my rights.

What YOU, I am certain, are going to tell me is that "socially liberal" means that when some poor chump refuses to get a job, refuses to educate himself, etc etc etc...he should have shit given to him. That isn't "social liberal". That's *retardedism*. That's socialism (not really).

But....if you want to talk about "safety" nets as part of socially liberal, I am all for "safety nets". A safety net means that, when you fall, I'll be there to catch you....JUST AS LONG as you get your lazy, fucking ass OUT of the net as quickly as possible. Because, as soon as you land in my net, the timer starts....

I'm all for brotherly love and helping a guy out.....what I....and many other "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" people are NOT for is the idea that "social safety net" somehow means I have to apply a generous amount of lube to my ass so you can fuck me over for the rest of my life and take away the fruits of my labor, without ever asking the tit-suckers that are stealing my fruit to ever reach a point where they are providing their own fruit.

well the idea is that while some people obviously fail because of choices they and their family/community have made, others fail time and again because of situations outside of their control. while some of those situations outside of their control may be flat-out bad luck, others may be societal prejudices playing against them in sinister ways. naturally, your frustration comes from the constant portrayal of all the failings of people belonging to a historically and present-day disenfranchised group as being solely due to the disenfranchisement. that's legitimate. it doesn't mean those societal prejudices don't exist though, it's just a matter of getting both sides to approach these issues much more individually and much more thoughtfully than painting with broad strokes.

y2k - the "social liberal" = "spend money on people that 'need' it" plan has cost the country.....how much? A trillion dollars? More? And poverty is as bad as ever?

Funny thing happens every now and then. Every now and then states get "fiscally conservative" governments in place, and those government put stricter limits on "socially liberal welfare".....ie. they tell people to get a fucking job, or at least *demonstrate* that you are trying and/or getting an education, or we will cut your ass off.

Here is the chain of events when such policies are enacted:
1. Liberals scream bloody murder about the unfairness of it all (it's n-o-o-o-o-o-o-t their fault....wah....you are evil....there will be starving people d-y-i-n-g in the streets....wahh wahh wahh....)
2. Policy is enacted
3. Benefits are suddenly limited...and....
4. The *real* threat of losing your "safety net" rears it's ugly head....and....
5. Long term unemployment numbers drop, BECAUSE....

6. Turns out the fucking social "safety net" was, in fact, a fucking lazy boy recliner.


"Social Liberalism" in the form of financial handouts is as close to you can get to slavery...it enslaves a class of people to teh government and strips them of their motivation to be self-successful. More to the point, "social liberalism" in the form of financial handouts is the direct opposite of fiscal conservativism, A-N-D, "social liberalism" in the form of financial handouts has been demonstrated to *cause more harm than good*.

1. Because it just hasn't fucking worked, for one, and,
2. The reduction in handouts has inevitably led to an INCREASE in self-sufficiency among the former recipients who are forced to go find work.

"Social Liberalism" in the form of financial handouts is evil and immoral as currently enacted.

As I said...I am all for a "safety net"....but the modern day enactment of these policies is, as I described, a lazy boy recliner, demotivated, enslaving policy that ruins lives.

....


If you want to take it one step further, the social libeal welfare system, that has made it almost easy to spread your legs and be a single mother living off government benefits has made it possible for the easy increase in the virus of single motherhood that is infecting our culture. That, along with the pervasive "social liberal" attitude that you are not allowed to shame a woman for being a whore and having kid(S) out of wedlock.

The result....70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in the black community which...surprise surprise....also sports the highest rates of poverty and crime.

But....oh no no no no....I"m a racist if I say these things. I"m a racist if I say the cultural acceptance of the destruction of the two-parent household in the black community....AS ENABLED BY SOCIAL WELFARE LIBERAL POLICY....is the true problem in the country that is causing all the racial tension, etc etc etc...

**

Take your social liberal = financial handouts talk and stuff it where the sun don't shine, my friend.

Hmmmm, I might do that

This is a pretty silly article. What it basically is saying is, "People who agree with me on some things and not on others don't understand. THEY SHOULD AGREE WITH ME ON EVERYTHING!!." Put differently, it assumes that people who are "socially liberal" are socially liberal because they fundamentally agree with progressivism's goals and ideals.

In fact, people who say they are socially liberal are probably just using it as shorthand to say that they agree broadly with the left's *positions* (not necessarily reasoning) on the specific issues broadly classed as social. It's not some big commitment. In particular, the commitments of many of them are to libertarian ideals, which are more or less completely inconsistent with everything in that article (except 5, where most social liberals would probably actually agree).

Y'all ever heard of the "Nordic Model"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

"The Nordic model has been successful at significantly ameliorating poverty. In 2011 poverty rates, before taking into account the effects of taxes and transfers, stood at 24.7% in Denmark, 31.9% in Finland, 21.6% in Iceland, 25.6% in Norway, and 26.5% in Sweden. After accounting for taxes and transfers the poverty rates for the same year became 6%, 7.5%, 5.7%, 7.7%, and 9.7% respectively, for an average reduction of 18.7 p.p. Compared to the US, which has a poverty level pre-tax of 28.3% and post-tax of 17.4% for a reduction of 10.9 p.p., the effects of tax and transfers on poverty in all the Nordic countries are substantially bigger. In comparison to France (27 p.p. reduction) and Germany (24.2 p.p. reduction), however, the taxes and transfers in the Nordic countries are smaller on average."

"Hell, I didn't even know what an ableist was."

Shocker

How do you live in such a shell that you don't know what ableism is?

@bo,

Not everybody spends their time listening to or reading progressive screeds about the many different kinds of discrimination they are committing all at once just by breathing the air.

@Thucy,

"Shocker"

You know, you believe that all people are really one, but sometimes I find myself wondering if even you are really one. The Thucy we meet in philosophical or ethical threads waxes almost poetic about how the only command is not to judge. The Thucy we meet in political threads is, by a long sight, the most judgmental character on the site.

When you scowl at someone for parking in a handicap spot because they don't look handicapped to you, you're being ableist. When you dismiss someone's learning disability because it doesn't overtly affect them, you're being ableist. When you say that people with handicaps earned it in a past life (yes, I've heard that), you're being ableist. It's a real thing. Fortunately, it's not something you encounter every day like many other forms of discrimination. That doesn't give you reason to deny its existence or be ignorant of it.

bo_sox,

When you do those things, you're being a jerk. The need to create vast taxonomies of jerky behavior and tie them all to group membership, on the other hand, is a uniquely progressive disease.

You might call it fauxnomism (or the discrimination against those who won't use made-up names for things).

I am sorry that you choose not to keep up. Just be sure to point out when people are jerks and I'll make do with that.

bo_sox,

Thank you. Your saying that you'll "make do" with my behavior is actually a classic case of fauxnomism, but I'll forgive you.

As for "keep[ing] up" -- keeping up with what, exactly? I certainly expose myself to more than my share of articles purporting to explain one or another "ism." Is "not keeping up" now a synonym for disagreeing with progressive dogma?

Does that seem a little.... oh, I don't know.... progressivist?

Just in case I'm being opaque, by the way, let me explain what is terrible about your position in this thread. You took umbrage at Octavious *just for not knowing about the [recently-minted] word 'ableist.'* You did not witness any actual hostility or discrimination or loutish behavior from him toward any disabled person, or even an expression of being OK with such. He just said he hadn't heard of a word, and you thought it was OK to abuse him (just a little) for it.

You think it's OK to confront people for not keeping up with the literature of your particular social milieu (and yes, believe me, "ableist" is a word found primarily in the writings of young, educated, twenty- or thirty-something progressives and their academic heroes) -- which is just incredibly hypocritical, since the whole point is supposed to be not being rude to people because they come from a different background from you, or making insulting presumptions about how they should or shouldn't act based on said background.

I think you're being obtuse. A MONTH IN THE HOLE!

"Not everybody spends their time listening to or reading progressive screeds about the many different kinds of discrimination they are committing all at once just by breathing the air."

You're right, of course. Some people are breathtakingly privileged.

Look homie, I'm sorry you're a white dude and you're tired of being asked to consider what life is like for people who are systematically fucked over. I really am. I'm a white guy too, without any discrimination history to speak of.

But if you want to pretend you have a scrap of empathy for other people who are not exactly like your own self, you should listen to what they say. Ableism isn't something that some bot invented out of thin air. Disable people with real experiences of discrimination helped coin a term for a process and a prejudice which has been around for millennia. If you are not familiar with the word, you should at least be familiar with the failing of society which is its ableism.

And I'm curious what difference it makes what year the word was coined? Certainly racism itself predates the term, what of it?

" Is "not keeping up" now a synonym for disagreeing with progressive dogma?"

Would care to list the forms of discrimination that you consider to be unfounded "dogma," then, if you are so unafraid to "dissent?"

Certainly ableism is one. I'm sure you have no problem with transphobia, what else? If you wouldn't mind, could you provide a brief sentence with each about why that group of people is undeserving of your respect and compassion? Thanks so

Oh Thucydides! Your moral superiority shines like a beacon, to guide us all.

More likely, his moral superiority shines like bacon, and kills us all.