HOW LIBERALS BECAME ILLIBERAL

the "gish gallop" made famous by a famous "creation scientist."

Gish gallop - Wikipedia

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.

Generally, it is more difficult to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than in a free-form one.[7] If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by pre-empting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments first, before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.[8]

 

The common usage of 'liberal' has shifted from referring to 'classical liberal' (Thomas Jefferson, JFK, me) to 'neoliberal' (MWD-a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods), aka- 'progressive' (MWD- one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action)

 

Ya your reply was.. Now that you recognize them, maybe try harder?

 

Because the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty have not had the beneficial effects liberals predicted when they were passed into law, many liberals have made it dangerous to describe the effects they have had.

"What effects are those?" you may ask.

It is too dangerous to say.

 

Yup. That’s it.

 

That's called reality.

 

By a convicted felon and fraud. Do better.

 

From the beginning of the McCarthy Era in 1950 to the Tet Offensive in 1968 conservatives restricted intellectual freedom in the United States. With loyalty oaths, witch hunts, and black lists they made it dangerous to criticize capitalism, advocate socialism, or to say anything good about any Communist country. This ended with the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. After then it became safe in the United States to analyze and discuss the beliefs that got the United States into the War in Vietnam.

In 1969 Berkeley Professor Arthur Jensen had an article published in The Harvard Educational Review. In this article he argued that little can be done to improve scores on mental aptitude tests and school performance. The following chart demonstrates that he was right:



Nevertheless, new left student radicals interrupted his classrooms. He received death threats, and occasionally required police protection.

In September 1971 the Atlantic published an article by Harvard Professor Richard Herrnstein in which he anticipated arguments he was later to present along with Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. In the spring of 1972 the new left organization Students for a Democratic Society held a convention at Harvard with the expressed intention of getting Professor's Jensen, Herrnstein, and others of like mind fired. Fortunately, SDS failed and soon went out of existence. Nevertheless, a precedent had been set for suppressing those who assert a strong relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, and race. It still is dangerous to make those assertions.

 

Exactly. I am pretty sure that I would have to have large portions of my brain removed, in order to think like a conservative.

 

Burke is rolling over in his grave. Sure, conservatives aren’t conservatives these days but they’re certainly not Liberals of any stripe. Lol

 

Conservatives aren't conservatives these days?

 

You do not know what you are talking about. How can liberals no longer be liberals? All true liberals are aliens, from a federation of a cluster of stars with inhabited planets. We may look a lot like earthlings, but that is just a fortunate coincidence, allowing us to do as we please, mostly unnoticed. It is easily verified as liberals have a redundant heart which prevents us from falling victim to heart failure. Our blood tends to have a greenish glow to it. You must know, us liberals are generous beings. We like to help the less fortunate. Even those who say horrible things about us. Because we know the emotions involved, and how they blind earthlings. The rant goes on, because apparently earthlings do not like looking at tailpipes fading off into the distance.


You talk as if you somehow represent liberal thought, but what you speak, how you speak is not what we taught to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and the rest of them. Were you not paying attention when they spoke of civic virtue? The ideology we gave the early Americans is an ideology of civic virtue. That one is to do for the good of the community, even at the cost to oneself. Is that not what makes a patriot a patriot. Willing to die for the benefit of one’s country, for one’s people. For the betterment of society. Conservatism or what it is that votes for Republicans, the red hatters, have bought into the cult of the individual. That one should not be obliged to pay taxes because those taxes just might go to help someone not quite as well off as oneself. Quite a selfish ideology, this ideology of Republican voters. Not at all adhering to the liberal ideal, the liberal guiding principle of civic virtue.

 

would wm f buckley recognize trump as a conservative?

 

not only do many conservatuves reject the enlightenment in favor of fundamentalism, but what modern conservatives call "socialism" and "classical liberalism" are not mutually exclusive.

 

Absolutely, and in fact it was due to Trump's conservative minded policies that led to the unmasking of the phony Republicans (Trump haters) that made up the defunct Lincoln Project et al.

 

Wrong.

 

13 Ways Trump Isn’t Conservative. The label “Never Trump” is off the mark… | by Heath Mayo | Medium

or here is buckley's own magazine (goldberg and d'souza seem to be favorites of the pf right)

Donald Trump & America -- Violence, Conservatism, and Populism | National Review

and here is buckley's opinion of a movement similar to trumpism ...

William F. Buckley & John Birch Society: History of Conflict with Robert Welch | National Review

 

I recovered from being a Democrat. And you can as well.

Start out reading a Time for Truth by William E. Simon
Go back and study this time the words of Thomas Paine
Examine the founding of this country.

 

I don't see a lot of future in debating semantics.

 

Then you will enjoy this video.

 

Was it that Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency that scared you away? How he honored Kennedy in such a profound way?

Why do you need to read an interpretation? Paine wrote in plain English.

 

L.B.J. was a bigot.Got a real kick out of calling their house { Mansion }
Butler the " N " word.Took pride in it.Just like when he used the " N "
word telling fellow Democrats " I'll have those { N word } voting Democrat for the
next 200 years." Snopes wants you to believe that L.B.J. really never said it
and was a champion of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.
Not hardly.There was a previous Civil Rights bill brought about by
Eisenhower in 1957.The ' 57 Civil Rights act { bill }. Where Big lug
Bigot L.B.J. was the Senate Majority leader.The bill ended up going
nowhere cause of L.B.J.
Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights act did establish for the first time a
Civil Rights section of the Justice Dept.

 

Give a definition and example of " plain English ".

 

Dennis Prager is The Expert on the difference between a Liberal
and a Leftist.Keep in Mind that Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan { Senator who Hillary Clinton replaced }
was a Liberal.
A Liberal is one open to debating and challenging difference
points of view.A Lefists is none of that.
A Leftist refuses to debate and is obnoxious about it.
They literally will not tolerate bipartisanship.
2 classic examples are Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
It's Their way or the Highway ... 24/7.
And then some.

 

I’m agreeing with your basic premise though disagreeing that conservatives are classical liberals.

Mill was likely closer than Burke.

The ever narrowing definition of morality/ethics is where conservatism has gone off the rails.