'Progress' is a fundamentally left-wing idea
-
-
-
It's liberal. The centre-right often wants things to get better too. I am left bug not far-left. I don't seek revolution but steady progress of the kind we've seen in the last 50 years.
-
Well liberalism was left wing until the 20th century. Historically, most conservatives would have found the idea of 'social progress' anathema. It implies a departure from social order and hierachy, religion, tradition etc. Your position is left-wing, which is fine
-
but I don't think it's even centrist. It's definitely, clearly Left
-
Don't think what is even centrist? Social progress? Maybe tho I'm pleased to know many conservatives to supported same sex marriage & the right to die. But my point was that liberals can't let the far-left loons own this concept.
-
Enlightenment liberals, classical liberals, universal liberals also want social progress. This is not owned by radical lefties.
-
Those liberals were once radicals
-
I'm not sure what you're arguing with. I'm saying there is a liberal left and a radical left now and the radicals don't own the aim for social progress. This is inherent in liberalism.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I understand you don't want the hate speech from the right, but why don't you want to have even more social progress from the left?
-
Huh? I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't want it believed that a support for freedom of speech is support for the far-right or that a belief in social progress indicates supporting far-leftist identity politics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why is freedom of speech associated with the far right? Far right govs have always been hostile to it...
-
Because people are stupid. Saying Nazis shouldn't be punched now means being pro-Nazi. Defending FoS for conservatives or even the wrong kind of centrist or liberal is liable to get you called a patriarchal, white supremacist, alt-right etc. And the real deal has seized on this.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It's the far left (and the opportunistic centrist establishment) associating free speech with the right.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Damned far-centrists. Ruining all our divisiveness!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The widespread belief in Eugenics within the mid 20th century left disproves that anyway -https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
good luck with pursuing paper freedoms and rights while real economics smashes people's lives apart. Rights are important, but as part of dealing with economic realities of power and wealth and how they are distributed unfairly and inefficiently in society. :)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wouldn’t consider valuing equality in rights, freedoms, and opportunity to be a broad, let alone the broadest, embrace of liberalism. Breed enough serfs and you’ll approach maximum equality real quick. This “liberty is a scarce resource” approach is for the birds.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then it’s time for those who would revivify the term “liberal” to craft two thick new borders. Draw one border around negative rights and another around positive rights.
-
Once this is done, you’ll need to police yourselves and others very carefully. What you’ll do is jealously guard the borders of negative liberty as your chief duty, being careful to fight off any who would centralize power in the state in order to encroach on these liberties.
-
If you do this, then you have a ready-made tool to reel in people from both the Right and the Left.
-
To the Right, you offer them thick borders, which brings structure, specificity, order, hierarchy, and standards of certainty. This helps them keep chaos at bay, but also transforms them into jealous guards of liberty. Framing it this way appeals to their nature.
-
To the Left, you offer them a community of free individuals which works to combat oppression by tearing down anyone who would trample the rights of the underprivileged. This helps them keep order from stifling liberty. Framing it this way appeals to their nature.
-
I never see anyone framing it this way. Ever. I never see anyone talking about negative rights or positive rights. People just chatter about “rights” as a general concept. This dampens any attempt to broadly appeal to the entire spectrum.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.