|
>>"classic" liberalism was invented by white men to preserve
>>their 18th and 19th century high water mark of imperial
>>philosophy. "classic" is defined more by what it rejects
>than
>>what it is, just like classic coke. it means "don't add new
>>ingredients to my liberalism"
>
>Absolute nonsense. If it were true than racist white men
>would be aligning themselves with liberalism. They're not.
>They're aligning themselves with identity politics that have
>root in national socialism. Ironically, just like you.
bullshit, and you know i'm fucking right because you're deflecting when i'm taking about YOUR people, not the alt-right. though, of course, the tea party is not nationalist or socialist and claims to have it's origins in liberal theory.
the ONLY reason we have people who align with "national socialism" is because of racism. and, of course, we're only talking about nazis because you're obsessed here, but the nazis weren't socialist either.
>>adam smith and john locke didn't call themselves classical
>>liberals because they were creating new ideas. james madison
>>and de tocqueville didn't call themselves classical liberals
>>because they were witnessing new governing models being
>>developed.
>
>They didn't call themselves 'classical liberalists' because
>liberalism had not yet been hijacked by postmodernist critical
>theory. The only reason liberalism needs to be
>re-appropriated is because of people like you.
you sure like two and three-word labels for things, but you're agreeing with me. i don't call women's rights, labor movements, rights for people of color, and democracy "hijacking" but hey connotations.
for what's it's worth, and i've said this before, my degree is in political theory, with an emphasis on "classical" (greek, latin, and christian) political theory and 18th/19th century democratic theory. i took a lot of psych (several of my political science professors and my social psych adviser was on one of your "good" lists recently and dev psych isn't generally considered a corrupted discipline) and ed classes (most of my professors were more into psych and dewey than freire, but i suppose you could considered that corrupted).
i don't really have beef with the original scholars, they were a product of their times. i have issues with people today who don't understand the context of the original theory and it's relevance to the context they're living in today. like constitutional textualists.
>>i'm super into personal rights and utilitarianism.
>
>lol we saw that above.
what have i said that contradicts being into personal rights and utilitarianism?
>" 'Classical liberalism' is code for
>white dude's opinions. Doesn't strike me as argument made by
>someone passionate about personal rights. Sounds like someone
>who's concerened with group rights. (ie National socialism)
maybe that's the issue. you're reading what you want to read and hearing what you want to hear.
>i like most
>>of it. but it does have blind spots. the only issue is have
>is
>>with fucking FREEZING philosophy in 18th/19th century
>western
>>europe (and among a class rife with sexism, orientalism,
>>racism, imperialism, anti-labor sentiments, anti-popular
>>sentiments, an obsession with property, etc.)
>
>I don't judge John Stuart Mill by the society he lived in. I
>judge him by the words he wrote. (yet another sign of your
>emphasis on groups over individuals)
the problem is john stuart mill wasn't writing to you. he was writing to people in his time. he couldn't see the rise of digital finance or global warming. he didn't have access to the internet and could only write about the disutilities he was familiar with in his part of the world.
j.s. was pretty cool. he was ahead of his time in terms of women's rights and eventually turned away from some free market principles in favor for some measures that could be called socialist or environmentalist.
there are thousands of utilitarians out there who you dismiss as being corrupted by critical theory who love j.s. mill too. in terms of barriers to equality and the relationship between capitalists and labor, i'm sure there are classical liberals that consider him corrupted.
most of the people in your list, i guarantee, don't give a fuck about j.s. mill.
>>
>>it wasn't until the time when Keynesian economics fucking
>>saved free market economists from themselves in the west,
>>women got the right to vote and participate in the economy,
>>and colonies began to assert that they had the right to self
>>determination that "classical" liberals started showing up.
>
>
>Again...the addition of the word 'classical' is a reaction to
>the increasing presence of postmodernist conflict theory which
>is certainly NOT responsible for our current, historical high
>standards of living. lol. You think Keynes is responsible
>for the higher life expectancies? Lower birth deaths? Racial
>and gender equality? hahahahahahahahahaha.
"classical" liberals showed up in the literature and in the press before postmodernism. and i didn't say anything about any of that shit. i said keynes saved free market economics, which it did.
>
>>these people were wrong about a lot of things, and i'm sure
>>you agree with me about that. so why are we assholes for
>>pointing out that?
>
>Who specifically was wrong about what?
adam smith was wrong about a whole host of things, from individual psychology to failing to anticipate the effects of future technologies on scale and logistics.
the founding fathers created a court that worked out being better and more important than they imagined.
tocqueville couldn't imagine urbanization, even though it was already happening.
steven pinker's best book is all about locke being wrong.
hobbes probably wasn't wrong, but if you read the leviathan without considering his audience and just take him at the text, he was very wrong because he didn't know what we know now about things like psychology or entropy. hobbes, like smith, also failed to anticipate the power technology would give individuals, corporations, and the state to produce violence at a distance with minimal personal impact.
again, these dudes weren't wrong because they got their facts wrong. they were wrong because they didn't live in a global world, and they lived before modern capitalism or urbanization. pretending their every word should be read outside of that context or is universally true would be like looking to the old testament for your rules on sex. and we know how most of your new alliance feels about religious dogmatism.
>most of the philosophers on campuses today
>>engaged in philosophy are taking a middle road that doesn't
>>refuse to acknowledge these biases.
>
>They are cowards who are afraid of being called racist, sexist
>and/or homophobic.
>
labels labels labels
>why are you so insistent
>>on focusing on fake, media-obsessed intellectuals while
>>dismissing the work of the actual philosophers? or relying
>on
>>armchair philosophers who do biology research but make their
>>money speculating on the social sciences?
>
>Calling them 'fake' doesn't make them so. I went to the
>trouble of providing synopsis and links. Most of them are
>professors. You are characterizing instead of making
>arguments.
i went through the trouble of categorizing your links in two. most of your professors make their money commenting outside their disciplines.
>>and you know i'm smart enough to be able to make a claim
>about
>>the biases about a movement and most of its name-checkers
>>without accusing somalis of self-hating. i don't have to be
>>steven pinker to know that the human brain is perfectly
>>capable of having bullshit allies and bad ideas without
>>turning on itself.
>
>I have no idea what you are saying here. It sounds like a
>half-assed attempt to backtrack on previous statements. If
>Hirsi-Ali, Nawaz, Loury and Mcwhorter have undertaken
>worldviews that are 'white male' codes....they should be
>called out on it. Why would you back off on them but not the
>white males they agree with? Perhaps because you are RACIST
>and place GROUP IDENTITY first and foremost.
no, i was merely saying women and people of color have other reasons for allying with the political theory of white men other than "self hatred"
again, the claim i'm making isn't that white men have come up with "classical liberalism" for white men reasons. the claim i'm making is that white men have a tendency to hold tight to classical liberal ideals WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS OR CONTEXT because it's easier for them than acknowledging how these systems and schemas have put them at an advantage and harmed other people. other people have their own, varied reasons for holding tight to "classical liberal theory" but it's not a coincidence that support for the alternatives is higher among other groups of people.
>>or, in simpler terms, watch bill maher or richard dawkins
>>interact with anyone who disagrees with them for a minute
>and
>>tell me those fucking assholes are the key to a saner,
>safer,
>>more just world.
>
>I think this is what your people call 'tone-policing'. 'Bill
>and Richard dont' express their views NICELY'.
my problem isn't the tone. i know lots of angry loud people that still offer considered responses.
my problem is they don't listen to other people. their opinions are the core of their philosophical experience, and they ignore context and the results of their debates.
furthermore, i know that someone like chuck d acknowledges their emotion when it comes to play in their opinions, but someone like bill maher only does so rarely. because they're "reasonable."
>Fact is...this is an emerging cultural phenomenon whether you
>like them or not. They are probably coming for your ass.
this is why i know i'm right. i've lived in all kinds of communities and i've never really been scared of my neighbors. fear of change is a big part of your movement denny, and people in general aren't scary. they just want life to be better.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
