Do you think the lines between liberal and conservative are starting to get blurry?

Not anywhere near blurry, yet, but maybe showing initial clues. Of course there are issues like foreign policy, where one or two republicans say halfway rational things, while Obama signs off on 'signature strikes', but in the case of feminism and gender issues, it seems to me like you can't tell who's suppose to be left or right. Are college feminists liberal? They why is there so much censorship advocated by them? Is "freedom of speech" supposed to be a decidedly conservative principle? Not in this universe.

Not saying this is a new phenomenon. You look at the French revolution and the people that were supposed to be the saviors of a brutalized people created the Reign of Terror. Was Robespierre a "liberal"? Some right wingers might swoop in and troll something about 'yus libs r fascist commiez', but even if I were to humor that shitposting, by which demonstrable events could that even be humored? The way I understand it, conservatism implies conserving an existing order, and thus implies an authority to enforce it. Liberalism also implies force, but not for the sake of conserving order, but to change it. It seems to me, like liberal vs conservative is little more than pro-wrestling, arbitrary stripes that people slap on themselves, in an attempt to promote their self-interests.

  • The left vs right paradigm is just a bunch of invented BS that rarely applies in real life
    Vote A
  • No. I'm left/right and my side is clear and concrete
    Vote B
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Girl

  • No. There's countless differences between liberals and conservatives.

    • BUt you miss the point. That's only true on paper. I'm talking about the real world.

Most Helpful Guy

  • In short, they have always been the same. Liberal means liberal use of governmental powers and conservative the opposite. Yet each one applies their powers for their own agendas and always have, its simply what the agenda is that is different. Then of course you have the fact that both function identicly the only real difference is what side of the line they are on ie I am right and if you don't believe me then you are an idiot/evil/hate america/hate babies. Both are special interests groups that really only look out for their own interests as can be seen in america where the infrastructure is falling apart, the military budget is 18% of our annual spending (despite the last attack on america by foreign powers was pearl harbor) which is about 4x more then the next biggest spending country (I believe that is england, but don't quote me on that) yet our educational system is shot to hell (apparently flunking every class is no longer a cause to be held back, you can fail and still pass) our taxes are ridicioulus meanwhile we have obama care that forces you to get insurance (against your will, on top of which its a scam, tell me one other business that makes money by giving it away) and if your to poor to afford it you get taxed. The list goes on, bottom line is both are incompetent and both are working for the same end goal, them selves. As to the idea of an ideological party, I think its rather foolish to decide to act in a specific way irregardless of circumstance and facts. liberalism has proven to have caused greater damage to our society, we can prove it statisticly yet the truth is ignored, same goes with conservatives. Its like assuming that stop drop and roll works for fires so its going to work in an earthquake too. Every situation needs to be appraised, not be solved with a blanket solution.

    • "Liberal means liberal use of governmental powers and conservative the opposite"

      That was so preposterous that I laughed. I don't want to argue with you if you believe this, but that is simply incorrect.

    • Why was it preposterous? Who is demanding the federal government to create more and more systems to affect the populus? Welfare is a liberal concept and that requires governmental powers. Restriction on fire arms is a liberal concept, which requires governmental powers. Racial/womens hiring quotas all are based upon governmental powers and are a liberal concept. Abortion laws are a liberal concept and it requires government invervention etc. etc. Meanwhile the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a conservative principle the idea that the government hasn't the place (and quite frankly the desire) to intervene on an individual level. If I am wrong then please explain what exactly I said that is incorrect (and prove it with evidence). The meanings have changed (they actually flipped positions/stances I want to say 150 years ago) but that is what they are currently.


Have an opinion?


Send It!

What Girls Said 1

  • No, the battle lines are drawn pretty clear- The left (like me) wants everybody to be treated fairly while the right only cares about white, christfuck, cis-males.

    Pretty much all racists and christians are republicans, the two segments of society I loathe the most and I wish would just disappear from humanity. So yeah, I'd rather blow my own brains out than see Trump getting sworn in to the oval office.


What Guys Said 3

  • You have to distinguish old guard European Conservatism from American Conservatism. American Conservatism advocates free speech because that is the conservation of the existing constitutional order. Progressivism challenges free speech because constitutional principles are loosely interpreted ( i. e. the traditional order is not STRICTLY adhered to) and there are virtues of tolerance that Progressives believe are equally important.
    Actually, the only area where I can't tell left from Right is on foreign policy

    • Here is where the whole topic falls apart. We limit the definitions to what suit our argument, and dismiss everything else as invalid. And vents that prove "our side" does the same things we accuse the other of doing are dismissed with 'no true scottsman' fallacies.

    • *events

  • nope, i think both sides are far too opinionated on matters

  • No, the sides are becoming more and more polarized.