Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

[limitles]

What's the point in buying a kid a $700.00 jacket? They're typically much lower priced than that and the little shit won't appreciate, will probably leave it somewhere and will expect more of the same. Now if that's not reason enough go ahead and spoil little Tony but do not send the kid to school in it. You're putting a target on the kid's back (no pun intended) in a number of ways and it achieves nothing positive. It's shallow.

What's that have to do with banning jackets? If parents want to be "stupid" and buy their kids expensive AF jackets, that's their prerogative. But they shouldn't be banned from being able to wear them to school.

Wow, some people. If the parents aren't savvy enough to know it's not a good idea to parade their child around in some overpriced garment then it's up to the community/school association to do it for them. Sorry you can't wear your tiara either

[Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe]

if you can afford a 700 dollar jacket and your kid is going to school with poor people your priorities are fucked up

[Lord of the Fraud]

I don't like the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rhetoric, because it's divisive and creates an excuse to never listen to the other side.

The left has been putting derogatory labels on conservatives as a whole for years: Stupid, simple, evil, greedy, selfish, backward, religious nuts, etc.

Especially since Trump has been elected, I've seen tons of leftists basically say, "Anyone who supports a racist, sexist, awful man like that is evil, and is not worthy of being part of any conversation about politics", which in turn has greatly fueled the rapidly increasing hatred between the two sides.

One should never try to find a reason to dismiss the other political side as crazy/evil/stupid so you can justify not listening to their opinions. That will never lead to progress.

I don't believe liberals have a mental disorder. I do believe that some liberalism does sometimes spring from the need for certain people to alleviate guilt for being successful/comfortable. "I have so much and my life is good, but I see others suffering, and therefore I feel I don't deserve happiness. Oh wait, I bet if I vote Democrat and support left-wing causes, that means I'm helping the downtrodden! Okay! I just did something to alleviate the guilt. I really am a great person and do deserve happiness!"

The term is called slacktivism -- activism or support of "compassionate" political/social causes, where little effort or help is actually provided to the causes, and the main purpose is to make the person giving support to feel good about themselves.


Unfortunately, liberals have a hard time grasping that it is impossible for there to be complete equality in any society, and attempting to force that complete equality will result in all kinds of unintended negative side effects.

so basically you're a sociopath.

Or in other words, a heartless bastard.

He legit thinks that people in a good spot who express concern for those less fortunate are putting on an act. Or those who champion social equality are really only in it for themselves.

What about poor people who do good deeds for fellow poor people. What exactly is their angle?

It's called having a soul, Druff. Just because you lack one doesn't mean everybody else does.

If you don't feel empathy, then that's fine. But don't tell normal people that their feelings aren't legitimate.

[RS_]

What's that have to do with banning jackets? If parents want to be "stupid" and buy their kids expensive AF jackets, that's their prerogative. But they shouldn't be banned from being able to wear them to school.

Wow, some people. If the parents aren't savvy enough to know it's not a good idea to parade their child around in some overpriced garment then it's up to the community/school association to do it for them. Sorry you can't wear your tiara either

Your responses are constantly off topic and have nothing to do with the discussion. Then again it's tough having a discussion with an alcoholic who's off in la-la land all day and night.

It has nothing to do with the community or school knowing it's not a good idea for a kid to wear an expensive jacket. It's about a school banning a jacket because the poor kids are getting bullied. What part of the article or common sense dictates this was done for the reasons you're stating? Never mind, you'll just respond with some random nonsense.

[tony bagadonuts]

This is fucking bananas.

School has SEVENTEEN children changing gender
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-autistic.html

[Dan Druff]

I don't like the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rhetoric, because it's divisive and creates an excuse to never listen to the other side.

The left has been putting derogatory labels on conservatives as a whole for years: Stupid, simple, evil, greedy, selfish, backward, religious nuts, etc.

Especially since Trump has been elected, I've seen tons of leftists basically say, "Anyone who supports a racist, sexist, awful man like that is evil, and is not worthy of being part of any conversation about politics", which in turn has greatly fueled the rapidly increasing hatred between the two sides.

One should never try to find a reason to dismiss the other political side as crazy/evil/stupid so you can justify not listening to their opinions. That will never lead to progress.

I don't believe liberals have a mental disorder. I do believe that some liberalism does sometimes spring from the need for certain people to alleviate guilt for being successful/comfortable. "I have so much and my life is good, but I see others suffering, and therefore I feel I don't deserve happiness. Oh wait, I bet if I vote Democrat and support left-wing causes, that means I'm helping the downtrodden! Okay! I just did something to alleviate the guilt. I really am a great person and do deserve happiness!"

The term is called slacktivism -- activism or support of "compassionate" political/social causes, where little effort or help is actually provided to the causes, and the main purpose is to make the person giving support to feel good about themselves.


Unfortunately, liberals have a hard time grasping that it is impossible for there to be complete equality in any society, and attempting to force that complete equality will result in all kinds of unintended negative side effects.

so basically you're a sociopath.

How does this make me a sociopath?

I can't wait for this explanation.

[limitles]

Wow, some people. If the parents aren't savvy enough to know it's not a good idea to parade their child around in some overpriced garment then it's up to the community/school association to do it for them. Sorry you can't wear your tiara either

Your responses are constantly off topic and have nothing to do with the discussion. Then again it's tough having a discussion with an alcoholic who's off in la-la land all day and night.

It has nothing to do with the community or school knowing it's not a good idea for a kid to wear an expensive jacket. It's about a school banning a jacket because the poor kids are getting bullied. What part of the article or common sense dictates this was done for the reasons you're stating? Never mind, you'll just respond with some random nonsense.

You're wrong. The "poor kids" are not being bullied. The concern is about poverty shaming. Parents are being told that expensive clothing, used by some as a status symbol, is entirely unnecessary. Bullying would result from a kid using a status symbol for shaming. That's when that "fortunate" kid would get his teeth knocked out.
Kid's will use whatever is at their disposal to elevate themselves or denigrate others. The have's and have nots is one such scenario and it doesn't have to be.

[Dan Druff]

Here is a great example of slacktivism:

Remember the protests at the South Dakota oil pipeline?

A claim went around the internet that the police were using Facebook check-ins so they could identify and arrest protesters. While the rumor was later identified as a hoax, I'll concede that it was plausible at the time it was being spread, and I was about 50/50 on whether it was true or not.

Well, some leftist came up with an idea to create a viral campaign to ask everyone do to phony check-ins at the protest site, thus preventing police from identifying and going after real protesters.

This was actually clever, and it would have been effective against the police if the situation were really occurring (which it wasn't, but that wasn't known at the time).

It got over 1 million fake check-ins within about 6 hours.

However, I still noticed some of my left-leaning Facebook friends sharing it at that point, asking everyone to "do your part" and "help these brave protesters".

I pointed out that, with a million fake check-ins, further check-ins were pointless. If the police really were using that to identify people, that strategy was ruined 6 hours ago, and was clearly no longer viable.

So I asked why they were still encouraging people to do it.

"It can't hurt," one replied.

I agreed that it couldn't hurt, but I asked what they thought anyone would gain from it. A million check-ins was clearly more than enough to accomplish what was needed.

Everyone got agitated with me. They couldn't explain what they were accomplishing by continuing to urge people to do phony check-ins, but they felt that it still needed to be done.

Then I realized what was really going on. These liberals really, really wanted to be "part" of the South Dakota pipeline protest, and they wanted their friends to see that they were compassionate and supported it. So even though the check-ins were clearly pointless by the time they shared it and urged people to continue, they had to go through the motions anyway, both to make themselves feel good and to earn compassion cred.

Slacktivism at its finest.

That story is a microcosm of what I see from many liberals. They think that being liberal = good person and conservative = bad person, so they want to take as many easy, low-impact opportunities to support the "correct" causes, and then give themselves a big fat pat on the back.

[JohnCommode]

I don't like the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rhetoric, because it's divisive and creates an excuse to never listen to the other side.

The left has been putting derogatory labels on conservatives as a whole for years: Stupid, simple, evil, greedy, selfish, backward, religious nuts, etc.

Especially since Trump has been elected, I've seen tons of leftists basically say, "Anyone who supports a racist, sexist, awful man like that is evil, and is not worthy of being part of any conversation about politics", which in turn has greatly fueled the rapidly increasing hatred between the two sides.

One should never try to find a reason to dismiss the other political side as crazy/evil/stupid so you can justify not listening to their opinions. That will never lead to progress.

I don't believe liberals have a mental disorder. I do believe that some liberalism does sometimes spring from the need for certain people to alleviate guilt for being successful/comfortable. "I have so much and my life is good, but I see others suffering, and therefore I feel I don't deserve happiness. Oh wait, I bet if I vote Democrat and support left-wing causes, that means I'm helping the downtrodden! Okay! I just did something to alleviate the guilt. I really am a great person and do deserve happiness!"

The term is called slacktivism -- activism or support of "compassionate" political/social causes, where little effort or help is actually provided to the causes, and the main purpose is to make the person giving support to feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, liberals have a hard time grasping that it is impossible for there to be complete equality in any society, and attempting to force that complete equality will result in all kinds of unintended negative side effects.

While I , of course, agree with your general premise that liberalism is not a mental disorder, I would take it further and say that any political philosophy can be judged as irrational if you look only at it's excesses. Classic liberalism does not include things like affirmative action, social promotion in schools, and local corporate taxes to deal with homelessness. However, conservatives are hardly immune to this kind of nonsense:

1) Voter integrity is a valid issue, but not the way it has been handled by conservative Republicans. Their voter integrity program should be relabeled as "The how to keep "Shvartze's and Beaners" from voting project." In North Dakota, they have even extended this program to keep American Indians from voting. Eventually, they will come for Asian-Americans.

2) It's hard to find a more conservative population than the American farmer, except when it comes to subsidies.

3) Whatever happened to free trade? If you ever want to guarantee that a worldwide depression will occur, install tariffs and then have countries retaliate with endless rounds of new tariffs or tariff increases.

4) Trump correctly lowered corporate tax rates, but that is not the issue. A good patriotic conservative corporation pays its taxes whatever the rate and attempts to change tax policy in Washington. It does not incorporate in some dodgy island country to avoid corporate taxes. To me, this is like structuring in money laundering cases and should similarly have resulted in jail sentences rather than being considered as accepted practice.

[limitles]

I don't like the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rhetoric, because it's divisive and creates an excuse to never listen to the other side.

The left has been putting derogatory labels on conservatives as a whole for years: Stupid, simple, evil, greedy, selfish, backward, religious nuts, etc.

Especially since Trump has been elected, I've seen tons of leftists basically say, "Anyone who supports a racist, sexist, awful man like that is evil, and is not worthy of being part of any conversation about politics", which in turn has greatly fueled the rapidly increasing hatred between the two sides.

One should never try to find a reason to dismiss the other political side as crazy/evil/stupid so you can justify not listening to their opinions. That will never lead to progress.

I don't believe liberals have a mental disorder. I do believe that some liberalism does sometimes spring from the need for certain people to alleviate guilt for being successful/comfortable. "I have so much and my life is good, but I see others suffering, and therefore I feel I don't deserve happiness. Oh wait, I bet if I vote Democrat and support left-wing causes, that means I'm helping the downtrodden! Okay! I just did something to alleviate the guilt. I really am a great person and do deserve happiness!"

The term is called slacktivism -- activism or support of "compassionate" political/social causes, where little effort or help is actually provided to the causes, and the main purpose is to make the person giving support to feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, liberals have a hard time grasping that it is impossible for there to be complete equality in any society, and attempting to force that complete equality will result in all kinds of unintended negative side effects.

While I , of course, agree with your general premise that liberalism is not a mental disorder, I would take it further and say that any political philosophy can be judged as irrational if you look only at it's excesses. Classic liberalism does not include things like affirmative action, social promotion in schools, and local corporate taxes to deal with homelessness. However, conservatives are hardly immune to this kind of nonsense:

1) Voter integrity is a valid issue, but not the way it has been handled by conservative Republicans. Their voter integrity program should be relabeled as "The how to keep "Shvartze's and Beaners" from voting project." In North Dakota, they have even extended this program to keep American Indians from voting. Eventually, they will come for Asian-Americans.

2) It's hard to find a more conservative population than the American farmer, except when it comes to subsidies.

3) Whatever happened to free trade? If you ever want to guarantee that a worldwide depression will occur, install tariffs and then have countries retaliate with endless rounds of new tariffs or tariff increases.

4) Trump correctly lowered corporate tax rates, but that is not the issue. A good patriotic conservative corporation pays its taxes whatever the rate and attempts to change tax policy in Washington. It does not incorporate in some dodgy island country to avoid corporate taxes. To me, this is like structuring in money laundering cases and should similarly have resulted in jail sentences rather than being considered as accepted practice.

You are so on point with "The how to keep "Shvartze's and Beaners" from voting project." and It's hard to find a more conservative population than the American farmer, except when it comes to subsidies. That's enough for me never mind 3 and 4
nice job

[limitles]

BTW Tony a flippant thread as this does not excuse you from complete failure regarding your political/philosophical ideals.
You are being laughed at by the majority
Bad luck going forward is a given considering your selfish choices

[sonatine]

obviously tony and i dont see eye to eye on this but tony has been incredibly generous with his financial wisdom with me and for all my bullshit i wouldnt want to live in a society that shunned him in any way, because he's clearly great at what he does.

the whole 'liberalism is mental illness' 4chan meme.. its disappointing to see him swallow that bait but you know, some of us have swallowed worse.




looking at you karen.

[sonatine]

so basically you're a sociopath.

How does this make me a sociopath?

I can't wait for this explanation.

you literally described basic human empathy as something 'certain people' use to 'alleviate guilt'.

im sorry you had to find out like this but thats textbook.

[Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe]

How old are you sonatine

[MumblesBadly]

I don't like the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rhetoric, because it's divisive and creates an excuse to never listen to the other side.

The left has been putting derogatory labels on conservatives as a whole for years: Stupid, simple, evil, greedy, selfish, backward, religious nuts, etc.

Except for “religious nut”, those are labels, but descriptive adjectives. And, yeah, many conservatives (like the poor whites and working class who voted for Trump believing he really cared about their plight) *are* stupid. And the GOPers who make gobs of money and bitch about working class folks getting food stamps when real wages haven’t kept pace with productivty for over 40 yeads *are* greedy. And the “religious nuts” who blanket reject science and civil rights for sexual preference minorities because they are irrationally afraid *are* “backward”. But I will agree that “evil” is not a valid adjective to use here. So I’ll give you that

Especially since Trump has been elected, I've seen tons of leftists basically say, "Anyone who supports a racist, sexist, awful man like that is evil, and is not worthy of being part of any conversation about politics", which in turn has greatly fueled the rapidly increasing hatred between the two sides.

One should never try to find a reason to dismiss the other political side as crazy/evil/stupid so you can justify not listening to their opinions. That will never lead to progress.

I don't believe liberals have a mental disorder. I do believe that some liberalism does sometimes spring from the need for certain people to alleviate guilt for being successful/comfortable. "I have so much and my life is good, but I see others suffering, and therefore I feel I don't deserve happiness. Oh wait, I bet if I vote Democrat and support left-wing causes, that means I'm helping the downtrodden! Okay! I just did something to alleviate the guilt. I really am a great person and do deserve happiness!"

The term is called slacktivism -- activism or support of "compassionate" political/social causes, where little effort or help is actually provided to the causes, and the main purpose is to make the person giving support to feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, liberals have a hard time grasping that it is impossible for there to be complete equality in any society, and attempting to force that complete equality will result in all kinds of unintended negative side effects.

For fuck’s sake, Druff!!! The vast majority of liberals in the US aren’t calling for “complete equality” except in social matters such as marriage rights and protection from discrimination. But they *are* calling for less *wealth* inequality given how much that reduces social and class mobility, which in the long run leads to the balkanization of the society and excessive accumulative of political power by the rich, both detrimental to the health of our democratic form of government

Druff, a serious question: Do you know of the history and causes of the fall of the Roman Republic?

[sonatine]

How old are you sonatine

over the hill i hear.

[Dan Druff]

How does this make me a sociopath?

I can't wait for this explanation.

you literally described basic human empathy as something 'certain people' use to 'alleviate guilt'.

im sorry you had to find out like this but thats textbook.

You need to go back and read my post, then.

There is basic human empathy, and then there is fake human empathy only existing to make oneself feel good.

It is my belief that many on the left are driven by guilt regarding what they have, yet don't want to give up those things or put a lot of time and effort into actually getting anything changed.

Instead, they express support for various left-wing causes and vote Democrat, maybe post a few blurbs on social media about acknowledging their white privilege, and then they can look themselves in the mirror again.

Most people want to believe they're good, and will seek easy and painless ways to prove it to themselves. Liberals have more of the guilt complex related to success (they think they don't deserve it given all the suffering out there), so they have more of the need to validate why they deserve a comfortable life. This leads to all the slacktivism, voting Democrat, and voicing support for left-wing causes, almost like an automatic reflex of the brain. They don't really have to accomplish anything -- they just need to feel like they've helped, much like a 3-year-old who helps Mommy stir the pot for 10 seconds when she's cooking dinner.

Conservatives tend to just feel proud of what they accomplished, and don't sit around feeling guilty. They still have empathy, but they show it differently, such as through charitable donations or similar means. Conservatives don't virtue signal very much through their politics, while liberals do it constantly. The only conservative virtue signaling I tend to see has to do with patriotism, but even that tends to die down when we're not at war.

My post about the North Dakota Pipeline slacktivism was a perfect example of what American liberals do. They wanted to feel like they were "helping" without actually putting out any effort. When confronted with the fact that their "help" was useless given the fact that the intended result was already accomplished, their heads started to spin and they lashed out at me. Taking away a virtue signaling opportunity from an American liberal is like taking a bone away from a dog. They don't know exactly why they need it, but they'll growl at you really loudly if you try to remove it from them.

[Dan Druff]

Also I've deleted 3 junk messages from FPS_Russia and banned him from the thread.

[Dan Druff]

The American left also puzzles me regarding their treatment of black people.

They've been loudly protesting the tiny percentage of black deaths at the hands of racist white cops. A black person in America probably has a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being wrongly killed by a white cop.

However, many thousands of black people die each year as a result of being murdered by other black people. The left does not seem to care about this problem. They offer no solutions. They close their eyes to it.

Black lives matter, but apparently only when those lives are taken by white cops. Otherwise, it seems liberals don't believe they matter.

Again, it's about virtue signaling.

It makes you look empathetic and caring when you protest the death of a black man killed by a racist white cop.

But you can't really protest black-on-black violence without looking somewhat racist to your lefty friends, so the whole topic is best avoided if you want to maintain your "woke" cred.

I won't pretend to have all of the solutions to some of these complicated societal problems in the US, but I sure as hell notice that the left is only loudly complaining about problems caused by the heterosexual white bogeyman, whereas everything else is best swept under the rug and not talked about.

[MrTickle]

ok seriously though, somebody please help. What is 'extreme liberalism'?