What are some of the liberal myths people cling to today?
Nuclear Energy is evil.President Obama is/was a beacon for change.Vaccines cause AutismGMO food is EvilBig Business has only influenced the Republican Party.Che Guevara was a great man.Turkey is a country (oh wait the Muppets have entered my mind once again.)Martin Sheen was more important than the President of the U.S. when he was playing a President.Hilary Clinton would be a beacon for change.That Hilary Clinton could be a fan of the Cubs, White Soxs, Yankees, and the Mets at the same time.Curt Schilling was on the Yankees (Ok so this was one liberal politician from MA)Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with the Chappaquiddick incident (you know involving him self in a young woman's death) George W. Bush was completely partisan (Worked with the Democrats on passing the Patriot Act, Leave no Child Behind, Bail Out, etc...)President Bill Clinton did not commit perjury at a Grand Jury testimonial.President Bill Clinton was non-interventionist, because of Rwanda, you know Kosovo, and bombings of Iraq & Afghanistan do not count apparently. Al Gore Invented the Internet and of course Man-Pig-Bear.Conservatives are the only ones that like censorship.Conservatives are the only ones that support a "War on Drugs."Republicans are the ones that are racist and full of bigotry. Not one liberal is (stick me the eye).Liberals do not like nation building for intervention (well, when they do it).Jane Fonda is a folk hero.Fox News is the only legitimate news to point to when discussing bias in the news media.
Do liberals believe that pleasure about anything is always healthy?
Why are you even asking this? MOST vegetarians are liberals. There’s nothing pleasurable about being vegetarian. Most Yoga practitioners are liberal. There’s nothing remotely pleasurable about yoga. Most people who choose carob over chocolate are liberals.Now go on the Wife Lovers’ site, these people are hedonists who enjoy swapping wives and watching each other engage in various forms of sex. There a discussion page that indicates nearly all of them consider themselves conservatives. Donald Trump would feel right at home there.I think you’re missing the big picture. Liberals don’t think prohibitions work for the simple reason that historically they never have. It is not that liberals actually want to engage in wild risky activity. It’s that they think things are easier to monitor and control when they’re in the open rather than in black markets and secret societies.The real problem that conservatives have is that they want to control things that are not only outside of their control but are also none of their business.
Do liberals believe the United States is a good country?
A2A. I think it’s a country just like any other. It has good parts and it has bad parts.I am not a patriot. This makes me rather unpopular with a great deal of Americans, who believe that patriotism is somehow necessary to be considered a “good American,” as if there were such a thing.Ironically, with most of these people, the most they’ve ever done to serve their country is go to the 4th of July parade and get blitzed. I was in the Peace Corps. That doesn’t make me a five star general, but I did get veteran status and I did take an oath to defend the Constitution and it is considered national service by the American government.And then I get these people who’ve basically done nothing for the US other than sit on their asses, watch HBO, and suck Twinkies telling me that I’m the bad American because I don’t rally around the damn flag when they wave it like they’ve got a bell and I’m Pavlov’s hungry dog.Pff.But, really, one man’s patriotism is another man’s nationalism, and nationalism is dangerous. I do think that one of the main problems with the US is nationalism that simply calls itself patriotism. Seriously, the amount of people who will start frothing at the mouth if you don’t agree that the US is the lovechild of Perfection and Righteousness is rather insane.They also tend to type in all caps a lot. As if the capslock button were the measure of country love.Do I dislike the US? No. The US does do a large number of things extraordinarily well. I see no reason to be ashamed to be American on a base level. It’s an attribute just like any other. It certainly colors my persona and my accent and my overall bearing (and my volume level), and I don’t see anything wrong with that.But do I think the US is inherently good? No. It’s a country.I also don’t think I’m an inherently good person, though. I’m just a person.I don’t see the world in terms of “good” and “bad.”
Is utopian thinking dangerous?
Interesting question. If you read Utopian fiction (ex. 1984 - Orwell, Brave New World - Huxley, The Handmaid's Tale - Atwood), the basic premise is that a "Utopian" society is far from perfect and usually the opposite of what we really want. These authors take the seemingly innocent objectives of society now and take them to their logical, most extreme ends. The results are disastrous. However, I don't think that utopian thinking in itself is dangerous. Really, we need to dream of perfection to get closer to a better world. I do think that it's easy to take things too far when you have ulterior motives (like money and power). With the way the world is headed, I'm afraid that we will eventually get our "Utopia" and the majority of us won't be very happy with it. I think that if we want to avoid this, the world needs a better distribution of money, power and education. EDIT:They are prime examples of what utopian thinking is.
What are some good conservative news sites liberals could read/follow if they want to avoid a filter bubble?
From time to time I have subscribed to both the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. The WSJ is quite reliable until you get to the editorial pages which are sometimes a bit rabid. But even there sometimes some interesting points get made. Believe it or not the WSJ and the New York Times are often pretty close on their reportage. The WSJ, however, often has stories that the NYT does not (and visa versa). The WSJ is also dedicated to economic analysis and that is not my strongest suit so I like to (well, like isn’t exactly the right word for reading boring economic stuff) see what they have to say. The National Review is far more partisan and generally less accurate and is not afraid to put the truth in the rear view mirror. Still their writers are smart and well-informed, and often get me agitated and looking for pertinent facts to rebut. At the moment I don’t subscribe to either — just the local paper and the NYT. Just don’t have the time. Once conservatives stop being jellyfish and dump Trump I’ll be happy to engage with true conservative thought again.I also subscribe to the Cato Foundation blog and read some of their analyses. Cato is more libertarian than truly conservative, but for the most part their analyses are pretty conservative. Well-informed and smart writers.I do not watch Fox News. The news part is usually ok, but the so-called analysts are despicable in their lies and ridiculous support of The Don. But I actually rarely watch any news program. NPR in the car sometimes.I guarantee you that far more liberals engage with conservative outlets than the reverse, although I’d be the first to admit that the percentage is lower than it should be.
Why don't some conservatives believe in global warming and why don't some liberals agree with the 2nd Amendment?
I guess I would be labeled a “liberal” by today’s standard of labeling people rather than listening to them and rationally talking with them.I don’t know if “some” conservatives believe in global warming or not. Nor do I care. The issue is really about the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming.Global warming and its causes have been twisted from the common conclusion of the global scientific community into some sort of myth or conspiracy. If you don’t believe in Santa Claus, do you go about telling children it is a conspiracy to sell toys? Of course not.I, and all the people I know who could also be labeled as liberals, agree with the 2nd amendment. What they don’t agree with is people going into a school, church, concert or theater and randomly shooting everyone. The issue is about random killings with auto or semi-automatic military weapons. Does the second amendment protect that? Of course not.The second amendment seems to be twisted by today’s logic from “A well regulated militia” to “unlimited and unrestrained access”.Smoke screens such as this question confuse people as to what the real issues are and attempt to turn these issues into political debates rather than a call to action.Are we afraid to address these issues? Only those with an agenda are. If not, just get out of the way or help the discussions to start.