This is Why Liberalism Always Results in Loss of Freedom - The Full Explanation

While the title might seem like hyperbole, I assure you that it's not. And if you'll read on, you'll see why.

Liberalism is a philosophy that views sensitivity as an extremely important virtue. Thus it views anything insensitive as something to be dispensed with. Here's the problem with that. The very essence of self-respect comes from the ability to let things roll off your back. To have thick enough skin to be able to laugh at yourself and not take everything so seriously. It is impossible to have any sense of self-confidence if you are constantly hurt by every little thing in your environment. So if you do not allow yourself to let things go, what other alternative do you have but to try to remove everything from society that hurts your feelings?

People can no longer have free speech because what if they say something that offends you? They can no longer have freedom of religion because what if they believe something that you don't like? They can no longer really do much of anything because there is always some possibility somewhere of it ruining your day which simply cannot be tolerated.

When you do this, you rob people of the ability to have any joy in life. Not just the people whose freedoms you're taking away but the people you're conditioning to be overly sensitive as well. Because you are making them unnecessarily sad, angry, and defensive all the time about everything. You have now taught them to allow themselves to be constantly made miserable by every tiny little thing around them. And the worst part of all is that it doesn't even matter how much you try to control or change. Because it will never be enough. There will always be something else to be offended by. Because it's the attitude that's causing all the problems. Not the environment.

 

Gee, so many false constructs, so little time!

 

Really? Maybe you should preach to the Conservatives this message. After all, they are the ones against gay marriage, the ones who in essence believe sex is for procreation only, and who seem to be obsessed with my sexual life in general.

 

He is dead on. That is what PC is all about. We used to be taught a proverb as children, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." The PC movement now encourages that you sue to right a verbal wrong. Look at the liberalism in some other countries like Sweden where you can now break the law if you diss someone on the internet.

- - - Updated - - -

And of course the left can't tolerate that and spew hatred and make threats to safety because of it. Thanks for giving the perfect example.

 

This is where today's liberalism comes from:

[video=youtube;vrt6msZmU7Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y[/video]

And THIS is the source of the tactics liberals use against people:

[video=youtube;x5uB6W4DiZM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5uB6W4DiZM[/video]

 

Right wing trash blogs with video!!!!!

Talk about dumbed down.

 

Typical left wing hypocrisy. Can't refute turn it against the conservative. Right from Saul Alinski.

 

This is a big straw man argument. A series of false constructs which the author then refutes (after having made them up himself).

Here are a few cases in point:

"People can no longer have free speech because what if they say something that offends you? "

No one is saying that anyone should be deprived of the right of free speech because it might offend someone. A lot of right wingers like to make this assertion, but they can't support the argument with any fact. Certainly people are offended by the constant stream of bigotry, fearmongering and vitriol that come out of a lot of right wingers and right wing media. I have dispises Rush Limbaugh because of what he stands for. But he has the right to stand for it.

"They can no longer have freedom of religion because what if they believe something that you don't like? "

No one said that either. It is evangelicals that keep trying to foist their belief systems on other people, not the other way around.

"They can no longer really do much of anything because there is always some possibility somewhere of it ruining your day which simply cannot be tolerated."

That last bit is meaningless.

One of the defenders of this right to annoy and offend talks about political correctness, as if it only went one way., It was not poltically correct ten years ago to say in public that Bush's Iraq war was a war for oil, or that the people running it had no idea what they were doing. Both are fairly obvious, but no one said so out loud at the time.

 

Do you believe consent of the governed is an important quality for a nation to strive for? Of the states who put this question to a vote how many voted for gay marriage? How many voted against it? Why do we allow judges, rebels in black robes, to overthrow the expressed will of the people?

 

Because America is a Republic, not a democracy, and it is a government for and by the people. And America has a document called the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, and part of it defines what rights we have as citizens of this country.

Sometimes the will of the people goes against the constitution.

And that also means that sometimes the majority of the people must bow down to the minority groups because the minorities have their rights too.

 

I'm going to say the OP is confused. There's a bit of it around:

"Freedom"? For some perhaps. It's interesting that when the courts seem to go against them these defenders of freedom start babbling on about the people deciding the issue. But then when there's another decision they like then it's back to the courts should interpret the constitution and all the rest of it. I'd be wary of those types.

 

Tell me; what do you think my stance on freedom of speech is?

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a perfect example of labeling, I've made that mistake before by throwing all liberals on the anti gun wagon together, then realized that some of them actually are very pro gun/2A.

I consider myself a conservative, yet I believe that birth control is one of the greatest inventions in history and think that most people should use it. See what I mean about the labeling thing?

**Edit** I also don't care if gay people marry each other, yet I'm a... conservative. Got it? Good.

I do agree with the OP on that everyone needs to grow the eff up, put on big boy pants, and man the eff up... the feminists are going to hate the "man up" statement, screw em! that's an example of growing thicker skin and understanding the point, not nit picking out of context words to suit your agenda.

 

That was your best comeback? Wow! I hope I didn't hurt your feelings...

 

Not everyone on the left is a Marxist, not everyone on the left cares what Alinsky or the DNC or MSNBC says, and not everyone on the left sits around gnashing teeth and wringing hands over the GOP and/or conservatives.

 

That is true, basically the progressive on the left is. Unfortunately they are left to vote for some very progressive candidates. Though not as many, there are also progressive Republicans.

 

Yes, but there are many other important virtues.

Why do conservatives report anyone who insults them?

Yet here you are, using free speech.

I'm liberal and I get offended on this site all the time. They're mostly from idiots who call em and idiot and I just laugh it off. I also get called a socialist/commie/statist/etc. even though I am a business owner. Again, I laugh it off.

Is insulting black people joyful? Is picking on children joyful? I'm fine that this soft of cruel behavior is "robbed" from abusers.

Why not look at the victims of bullying and ask them how sad they feel. If the bullies feel "sad" that they cant' bully, well, meh.

All they have to to is be respectful and they can enjoy life all they want.

 

"Do you believe consent of the governed is an important quality for a nation to strive for? Of the states who put this question to a vote how many voted for gay marriage? How many voted against it? Why do we allow judges, rebels in black robes, to overthrow the expressed will of the people?"

So your answer is "No. The consent of the governed is unimportant."

This is one more step toward revolution, in my opinion. When rebels in black robes can overthrow the votes of many tens of millions of people can revolt be far behind?

This is a very bad thing. It might be fatal to the Constitution, to federalism and to the nation.

 

Is everyone on the left a Progressive, socialist, liberal, fascist, national socialist, international socialist or statist? All of these are totalitarian.

 

Not so, as the ninth amendment makes perfectly clear.

Actually that's impossible, seeing the Constitution is the supreme expression of the will of the People, as represented, for almost all purposes, by 3/4 of the states.

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the letter of the Constitution, because nothing in it prevents the People from amending it so as to revoke those rights.

 

No, that is not what I said.

What you support is mob rule.

I support rule of law in accordance to the constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Untrue.

 

Not true at all.

The will of the people wants to impose slavery on the black people and other minorities.

The will of the people wants to keep women barefoot and preggers in the kitchen.

The will of the people wants to keep the handicapped locked up and hidden away from the general public.

The will of the people says we must all be Christians and follow Christian rules and laws.

The will of the people says that atheists can't be citizens of America.

The will of the people say it's okay for cops to just go in and search your house at their whim.

The will of the people says it's okay to not let you have any firearms.

The will of the people says it's okay for Muslims to barge in to your homes and start proselytizing to you.

The will of the people says you can't smoke or drink.

The will of the people wants to take all of your money away from you and let the government decided where they want it to be spent.

But one thing I do agree, is that it is actually easier to change the constitution or nullify it completely.

All the President has to do is to declare Martial Law and then declare anybody who resists it as unlawful combatants under the USA Patriot Act.

 

At one point in my life I would have viewed stuff like what the OP wrote as ridiculous, but after being around hyper-defensive liberal hipsters for awhile, I realized it was all true.

The saddest thing is that this kind of liberal really is incredibly miserable. They expect perfection but know that it won't come and their way of trying to project it themselves is to abandon all of their standards, ambition, self-respect and happiness.

 

Of course it is.

Not a syllable of this contravenes anything I said, obviously.

Please, you didn't understand a word I said.

 

"Do you believe consent of the governed is an important quality for a nation to strive for? Of the states who put this question to a vote how many voted for gay marriage? How many voted against it? Why do we allow judges, rebels in black robes, to overthrow the expressed will of the people?"

So your answer is "No. The consent of the governed is unimportant."

I see. So if 60 million people vote for what they want three to five men (and women) in black robes can overturn them? And that is okay with you?

When did we give them the divine right of kings?

If the government is no longer based on consent of the governed them we are already moving from soft tyranny to hard tyranny. And, if I understand your response, you support tyranny of a handful of people over the will of millions as evidenced by counted votes.

This may very well have a bad end.