A liberal would certainly not choose censorship, since that betrays everything liberalism stands for.

And I don't think conservative and liberal are opposites in the way you suggest. An authoritarian would be opposed to open debate, and that's what modern "liberalism" seems to be turning into.

All authority must be removable by a majority of those it represents at any time the majority so chooses to remove them. — universeness

And how is it supposed to work in real life? Why do we assume that the all-powerful government would be ok with being removed by the people, instead of just shooting a few unhappy ones and intimidating the rest?

Perhaps. But censorship would only facilitate a movement to the opposite extreme. — Tzeentch

The best I could come up with is that the censorship should be covert, pretty much like social media algorithms are censoring the people on the right. Of course, it takes a powerful politician, who could ask those companies to reverse their algorithms, which might of course lead to other problems. )

I agree that all attempts at a global socialist/humanist system has failed but If at first you don’t succeed you try try again. — universeness

If each attempts costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people than maybe you should not try and try again. ;)

ou don’t surrender to vile systems that maintain inequality and leave main power in the hands of the very few. — universeness

Well, that's how attempts to install socialism always end up.

Introducing dishonesty and more censorship would not strengthen a system. It would weaken it. Didn't we agree earlier that censorship is a sign of weakness, that a set of ideas need to be protected from criticism to avoid falling apart?

I suggest we base our views on ideas that do not need protection from criticism.

A liberal would certainly not choose censorship, since that betrays everything liberalism stands for. — Tzeentch

There's no "everything" that liberalism stands for. As I mentioned before, words are often more complicated than the overly simplistic attempts at a definition.

I might believe that interracial and same-sex marriage should be allowed, that transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, that some drugs like marijuana should be legal to buy, and that we should lobby companies to fire their employees for being neo-Nazis. Am I anti-authoritarian because of the first few views, or am I authoritarian because of the last view?

Or maybe trying to label me as being any one thing is futile. Better to just address the individual views I hold rather than fit me into a specific box.

Why do we assume that the all-powerful government would be ok with being removed by the people — M777

You demonstrate your misunderstanding of socialism.
Under socialism you cannot get an all powerful government. They would need control over the military and the checks and balances established under true socialism would make that as impossible as possible,

I might believe that interracial and same-sex marriage should be allowed, that transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, that some drugs like marijuana should be legal to buy, and that we should lobby companies to fire their employees for being neo-Nazis. Am I liberal/anti-authoritarian because of the first few views, or am I a conservative or authoritarian because of the last view? — Michael

You'd be neither. You'd be applying the principles your views are based on inconsistently, you'd be cherry-picking essentially. It'd be confused and hypocritcal.

You'd be applying the principles your views are based on inconsistently, you'd be cherry-picking essentially. It'd be confused and hypocritcal. — Tzeentch

How are my views inconsistent/hypocritical/cherry-picking?

Introducing dishonesty and more censorship would not strengthen a system. It would weaken it. Didn't we agree earlier that censorship is a sign of weakness, that a set of ideas need to be protected from criticism to avoid falling apart?
I suggest we base our views on ideas that do not need protection from criticism through censorship. — Tzeentch

I had read lots of materials on how people can be brainwashed. And if one has certain control over the mass media he can make people believe in complete lunacies, like that there are Nazis in Ukraine or that the world will end if it becomes 1 degree hotter. So how do we account for that if not by censorship? For example in my country all Russian tv channels and social media are blocked, which I certainly perceive as a good thing.

You demonstrate your misunderstanding of socialism.
Under socialism you cannot get an all powerful government. They would need control over the military and the checks and balances established under true socialism would make that as impossible as possible, — universeness

In not an all-powerful government, who will ensure the oligarchs don't get to power? I mean socialism without such government would fall apart in a month, with such government it would turn into a gulag. So, nice idea in theory, but won't work in real life.

Most of your ideas imply you want to be a proponent to individual freedom and expression. However, when you are met with ideas you don't like, you backpeddle.

"... and freedom for all, but only if I agree with you."

Such is not freedom, and such is not liberalism.

Wanting to prosecute people for thoughts in their head is about as far from liberalism as one can get.

If each attempts costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people than maybe you should not try and try again. ;) — M777

No choice as many many more die due to the whims of the nefarious rich and powerful few. This has been true since we left the wilds and became infected by the abuses of such systems as the divine rule of Kings or the demands and whims of those who claimed to represent or speak for the divine.
The existence of the rich few and poor majority is a residue from our ‘survival of the fittest,’ Darwinian beginnings. We only acted like that, while we were trying to make a transition from uncivilised to civilised behaviour.
Socialists keep insisting that we can become civilised.
Nefarious capitalist’s seem to prefer the jungle rules.
Time for the human race to unite globally and drag the rich into a civilised socialist/humanist future.

Most of your ideas imply you want to be a proponent to individual freedom and expression. — Tzeentch

No, I want acceptable things to be allowed and unacceptable things to be disallowed. That principle likely drives every political position: liberal, conservative, authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, etc. The difference lies in which things are deemed to be acceptable and which are unacceptable. I think that interracial and same-sex marriage are acceptable, and that neo-Nazism isn't.

I don't believe in unlimited/unrestricted individual freedom and expression, and I don't think many do.

Well, that's how attempts to install socialism always end up. — M777

It will succeed or the human race is doomed.
I think the human race is not doomed.
I think nefarious, narcissists are doomed.

I love the progression of this thread. It went from some piece of culture war trash to 'socialism bad'. These people aren't even trying. They just regurgitating talking points picked up from elsewhere and transmitting them like little antennas (omg trans). It's very cool to see in action. And since this thread is where it belongs I guess I do this now:

In not an all-powerful government, who will ensure the oligarchs don't get to power? I mean socialism without such government would fall apart in a month, with such government it would turn into a gulag. So, nice idea in theory, but won't work in real life. — M777

A rather misanthropic, defeatist viewpoint imo.
You can surrender to the dictates of the oligarchs if you want to. Meantime, we socialists will try to save you from your despondent hellish vision of ‘real life.’

No choice as many many more die due to the whims of the nefarious rich and powerful few. This has been true since we left the wilds and became infected by the abuses of such systems as the divine rule of Kings or the demands and whims of those who claimed to represent or speak for the divine.
The existence of the rich few and poor majority is a residue from our ‘survival of the fittest,’ Darwinian beginnings. We only acted like that as we were trying to make a transition from uncivilised to civilised behaviour.
Socialists keep insisting that we can become civilised.
Nefarious capitalist’s seem to prefer the jungle rules.
Time for the human race to unite globally and drag the rich into a civilised socialist/humanist future. — universeness

Sounds nice in theory, but assuming it would work in practice, or at least not end in a disaster, is way too optimistic.

It will succeed or the human race is doomed. — universeness

I think the west is pretty much doomed in the long run. A new civilization might come out of Poland/Ukraine. Of course it won't be socialist, yet very hard to imagine how exactly would it be formed.

I love the progression of this thread. — Streetlight

The thread is progressing, yet your rubbish is still being ignored. :cry:

A rather misanthropic, defeatist viewpoint imo.
You can surrender to the dictates of the oligarchs if you want to. Meantime, we socialists will try to save you from your despondent hellish vision of ‘real life.’ — universeness

Again, the problem is that when socialism is tried in real life, the 'good' socialists are used as pawns and than eliminated by very nasty people. So you believe that you will bring good to humanity, but in reality you just pave the way for the likes of Stalin, who will immediately kill you, once you have done your job.

I don't believe in unlimited/unrestricted individual freedom and expression, and I don't think many do. — Michael

I completely agree. You cannot have the freedom to incite violence nor can you have the freedom to compromise the freedom of others!
How can an individual have total individual freedom when they share space with others?

Have you listened to the Bezmenov interview?

https://bezmenov.net/
Unlike in the present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist–Leninist America. Here you can you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being dissident, for criticizing your Pentagon. In the future, these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they don’t understand and it will be a great shock for them, of course.

The thread is progressing, yet your rubbish is still being ignored. — M777

That's OK! I'm having fun shitting on bigots and that's what's important.

No, I want acceptable things to be allowed and unacceptable things to be disallowed. That principle likely drives every political position: liberal, conservative, authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, etc. — Michael

That's not a principle that drives liberalism.

The principle that drives liberalism is the idea that individuals and governments are inherently unfit to be arbiters of what is acceptable and what isn't on the behalf of others. (One needs only a brief glance at human history to see where this idea came from.)

They should therefore be kept from interfering in each other's affairs as much as possible.

In an imperfect world inferference obviously is inevitable sometimes, but if your first instinct is to want to interfere, then you're not a liberal.

If you fancy yourself the chosen arbiter of right and wrong, you're not a liberal.

Sounds nice in theory, but assuming it would work in practice, or at least not end in a disaster, is way too optimistic. — M777

You mean it’s too optimistic for YOU!

I think the west is pretty much doomed in the long run. A new civilization might come out of Poland/Ukraine. Of course it won't be socialist, yet very hard to imagine how exactly would it be formed. — M777

Is that because you live there or nearby?

Again, the problem is that when socialism is tried in real life, the 'good' socialists are used as pawns and than eliminated by very nasty people. So you believe that you will bring good to humanity, but in reality you just pave the way for the likes of Stalin, who will immediately kill you, once you have done your job. — M777

Socialists can learn and are born into each new generation. We will learn the lessons of history.
The methodologies employed by the nefarious are becoming more and more familiar over the era’s.
They can and will be stopped or be diluted towards mere itches.

Socialists can learn and are born into each new generation. We will learn the lessons of history.
The methodologies employed by the nefarious are becoming more and more familiar over the era’s.
They can and will be stopped or be diluted towards mere itches. — universeness

Ok, can you explain how you see it in practice?

Is that because you live there or nearby? — universeness

I live nearby, in Latvia, so of course I have a steak in the game. :) I think people in both Poland and Ukraine are very tough and self-reliant, so once the west crumbles, they might pick up the torch.

It's kind of obvious that what you're actually doing is being unable to cope with the fact people are having a discussion without you, about topics you find threatening.

Have you listened to the Bezmenov interview? — M777

The opposition don’t intimidate me with such bleatings from their favourite sheep, financed for public consumption. They do infect and cow some but socialists can combat their propaganda very well.
Fringe right wing freaks have always been around.
Look what happened to the more extreme examples such as Lord Haw Haw or Joseph Gobbels.