Why are liberals so hated?

[GameChild214]

Does anyone know why liberals are so hated? As a political insult it's become the polar opposite of being labeled "fascist". I honestly used to throw liberal around casually myself, but looking at the definition of liberalism it doesn't seem that bad to me. I will admit some liberals (such as feminist and atheists) can take it to far. But the definition of liberalism in this picture actually seems perfect to me.

[Feoric]

Believe it or not conservative used to be a dirty word. Then came the conservative revolution with Reagan and then liberal became the new dirty word. I'm not entirely sure but it looks like that's changing again.

[Fim]

I often find this weird american definition of liberal confusing. It seems to just mean anything that their opposition does that they don't like.

[24901miles]

They advocate for using taxes to support a large ambiguous group of people who are lazy, unproductive, counterproductive, disabled, will not be having children, or will be having mixed-race children, all in the interest of keeping the largest number of people insulated in a moral bubble, despite their contributions to uphold that bubble, in a civilization which had--through several cultures--prior emphasized productivity, honorable death, racial segregation, etc.
They advocate for animal rights, placing the importance of 'protecting wildlife' above the needs of the economy.
They advocate for higher taxes on success, as punishment for contributing to society.
They advocate for the dismantling of the traditions which built our society.
They demonize the military which protects us.
They advocate the legalization of drugs which destroy lives and turn people into lazy hippies.
They want to make it a criminal offense to own a firearm for defense against criminals.

It's pretty easy to see this as pure insanity from a conservative perspective.

[naronic]

probably because most definitions of liberals don't really describe anyone.

[poxpower]

At 11/25/13 03:41 PM, naronic wrote: probably because most definitions of liberals don't really describe anyone.

Basically.

It seems that "progressive" is replacing it.

[Feoric]

At 11/25/13 04:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Basically.

It seems that "progressive" is replacing it.

American progressives are to the left of the modern Democratic party. A lot of disillusioned Democrats refer to themselves as progressives to not only to bypass the kneejerk Obama-lover image the word liberal implies, but to also distance themselves from the party policy-wise. They aren't synonyms.

[Fim]

At 11/25/13 12:19 PM, 24901miles wrote: They advocate for using taxes to support a large ambiguous group of people who are lazy, unproductive, counterproductive, disabled, will not be having children, or will be having mixed-race children, all in the interest of keeping the largest number of people insulated in a moral bubble, despite their contributions to uphold that bubble, in a civilization which had--through several cultures--prior emphasized productivity, honorable death, racial segregation, etc.

congrats on making a sweepingly generalizing accusation, and with just the right pinch of racism and discrimination against the disabled. Well done. Who gives a shit about people at the bottom right? They're all out to take your hard earned cash, and the money from all those innocent eye-wateringly rich aristocrats who are enjoying tax breaks. Taxing the rich more than the poor may seem unfair on the surface, but wealth inequality in the US is a serious issue. Do you think its not a problem?. It's an incredible slight of hand that people have managed to play, that draws anger and attention away from those at the top who are responsible for the financial crisis and redirect that towards the ones at the bottom struggling to get by on the measly handouts from the welfare state.

They advocate for animal rights, placing the importance of 'protecting wildlife' above the needs of the economy.

In my opinion both parties in the US aren't doing enough to combat wildlife and climate change, there's still a notable minority who are trying very hard to influence the public that climate change isn't a problem or isn't caused by human production. If you ask me America has consistently avoided signing up to any international measures to combat this like the kyoto protocol and are spearheading the movement towards irreversible damage to the planet.

They advocate for higher taxes on success, as punishment for contributing to society.

What's the alternative? Tax the CEO and the worker who cleans his office the same?

They advocate for the dismantling of the traditions which built our society.

I'm guessing your referring to gay marriage or something. Don't argue with soundbites.

They demonize the military which protects us.

Don't even get me started on American foreign policy, I'm sure I have stuff I should be doing instead. From memory I think America spends more on Military than the next 27 countries combined, something like that. Theoretically I don't have a problem with that being cut, especially in the current economic climate.

They advocate the legalization of drugs which destroy lives and turn people into lazy hippies.

Now you're just being a stereotype yourself. And just to throw it out there, isn't limiting the involvement of government into people's private business a good thing? The government that governs best governs least right? The war on drugs, especially cannabis, has been a catastrophic failure ever since it began. Period.

They want to make it a criminal offense to own a firearm for defense against criminals.

Definitely not getting dragged into the gun debate again, I can already sense TonyDG getting a hard on over this. From what I followed in Washington the biggest proposals they were advocating was mandatory background checks.

It's pretty easy to see this as pure insanity from a conservative perspective.

Actually it's pretty clear from what you've just said that the perception of liberals by opposing individuals is so drastically hostile and misinformed it's no wonder that politics in the US has become polarized and dysfunctional.

From my point of view where I come from the democrats are a right wing party and aren't even close to the older definition of liberal, republicans are extreme right wing and the tea party are off the scale.

[Feoric]

At 11/25/13 04:18 PM, Fim wrote: stuff

Uh, he was purposefully using conservative spin as satire. He was joking.

[Fim]

At 11/25/13 04:24 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/25/13 04:18 PM, Fim wrote: stuff

Uh, he was purposefully using conservative spin as satire. He was joking.

D: well now I feel like a silly willy.

I guess it comes from arguing with people on forums who have had those opinions pretty much word for word except they've been completely serious.

[24901miles]

At 11/25/13 04:28 PM, Fim wrote:

At 11/25/13 04:24 PM, Feoric wrote: Uh, he was purposefully using conservative spin as satire. He was joking.

Somewhat. Not as a mischaracterization though...

D: well now I feel like a silly willy.

...It's fine. I can hold several opinions without integrating or acting on them. It's a skill I'm working on.

I guess it comes from arguing with people on forums who have had those opinions pretty much word for word except they've been completely serious.

In real life, I know several people who believe society will collapse if we lose the foundations of our common culture:
1. A strong religious core built on religious texts
..1a. Because God is real and he controls everything
..1b. Because God is fiction which builds society
..1c. Because Religion is a tradition which anchors society
.. ..1ci. Because societies which lost their religion throughout history have been destroyed (this belief comes from a religion education)
2. The original constitution
.. 2a. '' '' Similar beliefs as 1a-1c
3. The language and cultural balance we grew up with
.. 3a. '' '' Similar to 1c
4. The 'absolute respect' given to married couples who are going to have children
.. 4a. Because of Sodom and Gomorrah.
.. 4b. Because a tax reprieve for having sex and living together is not the purpose of the tradition of marriage. You're supposed to be starting a family.
.. 4c. There's another bit of reasoning here, I think it's just 'marriage is beautiful, gay sex is hedonism'
5. The 'absolute respect' for members of the military
.. 5a. Might makes right
.. 5b. The best defense is a strong offense
.. 5c. War is how we project strength to ensure our security
.. 5d. We are a species which is prone to war, if we aren't prepared for war, we will be unprepared when it happens
.. 5e. Similar to 1a-c, it's a religious struggle against Islam that will bring about the destruction of Persia (Iran) by Israel

So, they hate people who defy that future.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 11/25/13 01:34 AM, GameChild214 wrote: I will admit some liberals (such as feminist and atheists) can take it to far.

It's true that feminism, atheism, and liberalism tend to overlap, but far from all feminists or atheists are liberals. Case in point: Ayn Rand.

[Entice]

At 11/25/13 12:19 PM, 24901miles wrote: They advocate for animal rights, placing the importance of 'protecting wildlife' above the needs of the economy.

There isn't a single economic need that is threatened by providing reasonable protection of wildlife and conservation of threatened animals.

Destroying non-renewable resources (stable wildlife populations and healthy ecosystems) in exchange for a short-term increase in profits is the nonsensical move.

[24901miles]

At 11/25/13 06:02 PM, Entice wrote: There isn't a single economic need that is threatened by providing reasonable protection of wildlife and conservation of threatened animals.

Destroying non-renewable resources (stable wildlife populations and healthy ecosystems) in exchange for a short-term increase in profits is the nonsensical move.

Not if your perspective is that God all-knowingly put everything we will ever need on this planet.

[Entice]

At 11/25/13 06:05 PM, 24901miles wrote: Not if your perspective is that God all-knowingly put everything we will ever need on this planet.

Nah. There was never an implication that God put a mechanism in place to keep us from overconsuming/destroying the stuff we need.

[poxpower]

At 11/25/13 04:12 PM, Feoric wrote: They aren't synonyms.

Meh it's sort of the same amorphous blob of people.

[GameChild214]

At 11/25/13 12:19 PM, 24901miles wrote: They advocate for animal rights, placing the importance of 'protecting wildlife' above the needs of the economy.
They advocate for higher taxes on success, as punishment for contributing to society.
They advocate for the dismantling of the traditions which built our society.
They demonize the military which protects us.
They advocate the legalization of drugs which destroy lives and turn people into lazy hippies.
They want to make it a criminal offense to own a firearm for defense against criminals.

It's pretty easy to see this as pure insanity from a conservative perspective.

They advocate for lower taxes on failure, as reward for not contributing to society.
They advocate for the promoting of the traditions which ruin our society.
They support the military which harms us.
They advocate the banning of drugs which help lives and turn people into productive people.
They want to make it a legal to own a firearm for attacks against civilians.

It's pretty easy to see this as pure insanity from a liberal perspective.

See how easy your words can be used against you?

[24901miles]

At 11/25/13 09:21 PM, GameChild214 wrote: They advocate for lower taxes on failure, as reward for not contributing to society.

No they don't.

They advocate for the promoting of the traditions which ruin our society.

Which traditions? Conservatives advocate for things which are tried-and-true, so I doubt you have anything in mind.

They support the military which harms us.

The military harms such a small percentage of the voting population that it's negligible, especially with the potential thread of war, which is what fuels this opinion.

They advocate the banning of drugs which help lives and turn people into productive people.

Nootropics are not banned.
FDA approved drugs are not banned.

They want to make it a legal to own a firearm for attacks against civilians.

This doesn't even make any sense.

It's pretty easy to see this as pure insanity from a liberal perspective.

More like ad-libbing a fluff post without substance.

See how easy your words can be used against you?

You can use a lot of words to say nothing, that much is obvious.

[Luer]

It's still sad that most people think there are only Democrats and Republicans. Anybody that isn't one of them is described as a lunatic.

[GameChild214]

At 11/25/13 09:36 PM, Luer wrote: It's still sad that most people think there are only Democrats and Republicans. Anybody that isn't one of them is described as a lunatic.

Personally I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist.

[PrincessLuna]

At 11/25/13 12:19 PM, 24901miles wrote: Will be having mixed-race children...

You do not agree with interracial relationships I take it? If so, why?

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/26/13 07:32 AM, PrincessLuna wrote:

At 11/25/13 12:19 PM, 24901miles wrote: Will be having mixed-race children...

You do not agree with interracial relationships I take it? If so, why?

I love interracial sex.

[Entice]

At 11/26/13 07:32 AM, PrincessLuna wrote:

At 11/25/13 12:19 PM, 24901miles wrote: Will be having mixed-race children...

You do not agree with interracial relationships I take it? If so, why?

I don't think he actually takes that view, he's trying to explain why, from a conservative perspective, liberals are hated.

Still, I don't really see why anyone should care about the opinions of people who are so backwards (it's scary that some of them are in power though).

[PrincessLuna]

At 11/26/13 08:44 AM, Entice wrote: I don't think he actually takes that view, he's trying to explain why, from a conservative perspective, liberals are hated.

Ah. Thank for the clarity, I have seemingly misinterpreted.

Still, I don't really see why anyone should care about the opinions of people who are so backwards (it's scary that some of them are in power though).

I believe that we should care; and not only the reason that they have political power, but for the reason that it shows a fundamental flaw with education in general.

[Entice]

At 11/26/13 09:05 AM, PrincessLuna wrote: I believe that we should care; and not only the reason that they have political power, but for the reason that it shows a fundamental flaw with education in general.

Let me rephrase: I don't care what their reasoning is for hating liberals if it involves something bigoted/ignorant as not wanting interracial marriages.

I do care about the results of people having such beliefs.

[JamesGoldFire]

Come to Oklahoma or Texas and you'll really see what it means to hate liberals. These states are about as red as you can get.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/26/13 11:41 AM, JamesGoldFire wrote: Come to Oklahoma or Texas and you'll really see what it means to hate liberals. These states are about as red as you can get.

The reddest person I know is from Oklahoma.

Oh, and she can't afford to support her two children so she conceived another in order to get on welfare.

ITT: the reddest people are welfare queens.

[Memorize]

Personally, it's their inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. Demanding the freedom to do whatever they want, but not wanting to deal the consequences if they screw up.

-It's not my fault I'm on drugs, it's society's.
-Why am I being punished with a child? I never thought having unprotected sex would cause this to happen.
-It's selfish to want to keep what you earn, but noble to demand someone else's money that I didn't work for.

That, and using their own personal stupidity as a justification for their positions:

-Because I'm too lazy and/or stupid to walk into a nearby target or walmart to pay 4.50 for contraception, so I demand other people pay for my completely voluntary, non-medically necessary sex life, which by the way, is none of your business (lol).

But my main reason for hating liberals is due to the fact that I'm anti-war, so imagine my surprise when I see all the liberals who used to protest under Bush (wonderfully so) all of a sudden turn to loving and excusing Obama's actions when he does all the same things Bush did (extending the Patriot Act, ect..)

[orangebomb]

At 11/26/13 11:41 AM, JamesGoldFire wrote: Come to Oklahoma or Texas and you'll really see what it means to hate liberals. These states are about as red as you can get.

Clearly you haven't been to places like Austin, Texas, which they are about as liberal as any place in America, not to mention Houston and much of south Texas, which are mostly moderate compared to the rest of Texas. If you want to see a true red state, just go look at the Deep South as an example, particularly states like South Carolina, Alabama, or Mississippi.

As for the OP's question, liberals are often hated because they have policies in which they have good intentions in mind, but either have no backbone to implement them, or ask way too much for them, and end up getting nothing in return for it. It also doesn't help that the faces of liberalism are either smug, arrogant assholes who has a total blanket policy towards everything, or are extremely ignorant to what actually goes on and encourages ignorance and apathy that people seem to eat it up as the truth.

[TheRedRooster]

Liberals are only hated by the people at the opposite end of the political spectrum. For example a Republican wouldn't necessarily like a Democrat. Some people hate them because they claim they screw up countries. They don't screw up countries I mean look at Sweden they're highly Liberal and they sem to be doing great. My point: Liberals are hated. But, not by everyone.