Frustration wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:37 pm
That's not fair: the Baby Boomers are very interested in a better tomorrow... for themselves.
In fact, they're extremely interested in themselves, as a general rule.
These were Boomers too:
These were Boomers too:
These were Boomers too:
Like it or not, everything about modern activism started with the Boomers.
Many of those people were silent generation rather than boomers, they represent a minority of boomers, the laws were re-written under Nixon specifically to punish those boomer (mainly through the war on drugs), and their activism was a continuation of activism that had started in the 50s which itself was a continuation of the activism of the 30s.
phantom000 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:44 pm
I think that sentiment is reminiscent of western colonialism. They believed they were the greatest civilization in the world and so the best thing for mankind is to become exactly like them. I think the counter culture of the 1960's was a rejection of this idea of America and the West as the pinnacle of human civilization and that being American didn't automatically make you a hero. This seemed to be confirmed during the Vietnam War when Americans were committing war crimes to defend a corrupt regime against it's own people. Since then, the idea of America being the hero hasn't vanished completely but it hasn't shined as brightly has it did in the past.
And the only reason it hasn't vanished completely is a truly massive propaganda campaign designed to sweep American atrocities under the rug, and white wash the past in general. For instance the tendency to paint MLK as a moderate that won rights by asking nicely rather than the socialist who engaged in exactly the same tactics as BLM and died the most hated man in America, but with enough devoted followers that the last major Civil Rights act was basically a last ditch effort to stop nation wide riots from becoming a civil war
McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 5:45 am
I don't know. Seems like liberal are more about things can be better.
For individuals in the framework that currently exists, but meaningfully changing that framework is almost always shot down as too radical.
I dunno, Lincoln and the Civil War era Republicans abolished slavery and that's pretty radical. Defining them as anything besides Liberals seems wrong.
That's because Republicans back then were Liberals of today. Just Roosevelt was a Republican who introduced many social programs during his four terms.
Whereas modern Republicans are slowly going away from their own roots but still embrace up to a point Reaganomics.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 5:45 am
I don't know. Seems like liberal are more about things can be better.
For individuals in the framework that currently exists, but meaningfully changing that framework is almost always shot down as too radical.
I dunno, Lincoln and the Civil War era Republicans abolished slavery and that's pretty radical. Defining them as anything besides Liberals seems wrong.
That's because Republicans back then were Liberals of today. Just Roosevelt was a Republican who introduced many social programs during his four terms.
Whereas modern Republicans are slowly going away from their own roots but still embrace up to a point Reaganomics.
Yeah I know that. I was mostly looking for an example for a liberal that wouldn't lead to arguments over "is X a Liberal"? I mean, I would have used the civil rights acts of the 50s and 60s, but that would probably lead to arguments over "is that sufficiently radical" and "was LBJ a liberal".
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 5:45 am
I don't know. Seems like liberal are more about things can be better.
For individuals in the framework that currently exists, but meaningfully changing that framework is almost always shot down as too radical.
I dunno, Lincoln and the Civil War era Republicans abolished slavery and that's pretty radical. Defining them as anything besides Liberals seems wrong.
That's because Republicans back then were Liberals of today. Just Roosevelt was a Republican who introduced many social programs during his four terms.
Whereas modern Republicans are slowly going away from their own roots but still embrace up to a point Reaganomics.
Yeah I know that. I was mostly looking for an example for a liberal that wouldn't lead to arguments over "is X a Liberal"? I mean, I would have used the civil rights acts of the 50s and 60s, but that would probably lead to arguments over "is that sufficiently radical" and "was LBJ a liberal".
Well the simplest thing is that not everything is black and white.
You can easily have a conservative for example believe in liberal ideals and the other way around.
The unfortunate thing is nowadays it comes down to 'you are not liberal enough' or 'not conservative enough'.
You can have a conservative who does believe in gun control, abortion, science and all that for example. But usually there is a 'but' at the end of it. To give their reasons why they won't go so far as for example 'abortions for everybody' or gun control up to a point, or science still isn't sure about certain things. Stuff like that.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 5:45 am
I don't know. Seems like liberal are more about things can be better.
For individuals in the framework that currently exists, but meaningfully changing that framework is almost always shot down as too radical.
I dunno, Lincoln and the Civil War era Republicans abolished slavery and that's pretty radical. Defining them as anything besides Liberals seems wrong.
That's because Republicans back then were Liberals of today. Just Roosevelt was a Republican who introduced many social programs during his four terms.
Whereas modern Republicans are slowly going away from their own roots but still embrace up to a point Reaganomics.
Yeah I know that. I was mostly looking for an example for a liberal that wouldn't lead to arguments over "is X a Liberal"? I mean, I would have used the civil rights acts of the 50s and 60s, but that would probably lead to arguments over "is that sufficiently radical" and "was LBJ a liberal".
Well the simplest thing is that not everything is black and white.
You can easily have a conservative for example believe in liberal ideals and the other way around.
The unfortunate thing is nowadays it comes down to 'you are not liberal enough' or 'not conservative enough'.
You can have a conservative who does believe in gun control, abortion, science and all that for example. But usually there is a 'but' at the end of it. To give their reasons why they won't go so far as for example 'abortions for everybody' or gun control up to a point, or science still isn't sure about certain things. Stuff like that.
It also doesn't help that there are considerable regional differences when it comes to defining the terms. In Britain, the majority of ''the right'' is pro-abortion and staunchly anti-gun. Our supposedly right-wing conservative government has serious debates about who can buy butter knives.
I would say that ''right'' and left'' in Britain does tend to determine your immigration and green views in a way that mirrors the US though.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 5:45 am
I don't know. Seems like liberal are more about things can be better.
For individuals in the framework that currently exists, but meaningfully changing that framework is almost always shot down as too radical.
I dunno, Lincoln and the Civil War era Republicans abolished slavery and that's pretty radical. Defining them as anything besides Liberals seems wrong.
That's because Republicans back then were Liberals of today. Just Roosevelt was a Republican who introduced many social programs during his four terms.
Whereas modern Republicans are slowly going away from their own roots but still embrace up to a point Reaganomics.
Yeah I know that. I was mostly looking for an example for a liberal that wouldn't lead to arguments over "is X a Liberal"? I mean, I would have used the civil rights acts of the 50s and 60s, but that would probably lead to arguments over "is that sufficiently radical" and "was LBJ a liberal".
Well the simplest thing is that not everything is black and white.
You can easily have a conservative for example believe in liberal ideals and the other way around.
The unfortunate thing is nowadays it comes down to 'you are not liberal enough' or 'not conservative enough'.
You can have a conservative who does believe in gun control, abortion, science and all that for example. But usually there is a 'but' at the end of it. To give their reasons why they won't go so far as for example 'abortions for everybody' or gun control up to a point, or science still isn't sure about certain things. Stuff like that.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to illustrate in opposition to Draco saying "Liberals don't change anything".
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
