Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Vanoi]

I don't think you understand what the term means.

No i do. By definition if you are deplatformed you have no way of reaching people through talking, videos, ect. You'd have no platform to preach your ideas ir concerns or whatever you want to do. Yet Infowars still has an app and website meaning by definition it has a platform from which to reach people.

Both these terms, much like "hate speech" are purely political buzzwords and do not have any objective meaning or definition.

Except extremeism and hate speech do have actual definitions. This website itself we use doesn't allow hate speech and defines what that is rather well.

Its really only your opinion that those words are political. You also claimed it was more than just Youtube banning people for political descions. You got any proof for those as well?

[Heathen Hammer]

No i do. By definition if you are deplatformed you have no way of reaching people through talking, videos, ect. You'd have no platform to preach your ideas ir concerns or whatever you want to do. Yet Infowars still has an app and website meaning by definition it has a platform from which to reach people.

It doesn't mean there wasn't a collusion by oligopolies to deny it any other platform.

Except extremeism and hate speech do have actual definitions. This website itself we use doesn't allow hate speech and defines what that is rather well.

Its really only your opinion that those words are political. You also claimed it was more than just Youtube banning people for political descions. You got any proof for those as well?

Both terms are subjective, vague and do not have a coherent definition.
No, I said youtube is banning people for its own political motives.

[Vanoi]

It doesn't mean there wasn't a collusion by oligopolies to deny it any other platform.

It doesn't mean there was either. You can always post evidence to prove your claim.

Both terms are subjective, vague and do not have a coherent definition.
No, I said youtube is banning people for its own political motives.

They can be subjective but that doesn't make the words political.

Don't lie. You did claim more than Youtube was banning people for poltical reasons. This quote is from your post on the last page:

Infowars seems to be a pretty good example.

Since it is motivated by political goals.

They shouldn't have a right to make political decisions that reflect on society's ability to exchange ideas. There is no need to give them such right and saying the opposite is essentially anti-democratic. Let's be honest, you don't really care about the issue, you just happen to agree with the bias with which censorship is implemented. If they were booting liberals and and other pro-establishment groups same people who cheer this would be the first to demand the opposite.

You claimed Facebook banned people for political goals and that allowing these companies to ban people is allowing them to make political descions.

Prove your claim or drop it.

[Cope]

No i do. By definition if you are deplatformed you have no way of reaching people through talking, videos, ect. You'd have no platform to preach your ideas ir concerns or whatever you want to do. Yet Infowars still has an app and website meaning by definition it has a platform from which to reach people.

A person does not need to be absent any way of communicating to have been denied a platform; he need only have been prevented from using a specific platform.

[Vanoi]

A person does not need to be absent any way of communicating to have been denied a platform; he need only have been prevented from using a specific platform.

Except HH was claiming Infowars was completely deplatformed. Meaning they have no platform whatsoever. No one is denying Infowars was denied a platform.

[The spartan]

1. The US' intervention in the Second World War was not a response to the annexation of democratic states in Europe. America did not intercede as a result of the fall of Warsaw, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Oslo or Copenhagen. Nor did it offer direct military support to the English until 1941 - well over a year after the existential threat to Westminster's sovereignty had passed.

2. The nature of liberalism prior to 1945 is clearly distinct from the liberalism which post dated it. The British and French, whilst supporting domestic democracies, were global imperial powers with racial agendas. Their conflict rationale up to and including the Second World War was almost exclusively predicated on traditional power balancing in Europe and the maintenance of Empire. It had virtually nothing to do with humanitarianism, nation building or democratization.

I don't know if we should really get into this, but US involvement in the War was driven by the Roosevelt Administration's policy of repealing the Neutrality Acts of the 30s. The US was well on the path to war before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. And, obviously, they were there to fight on behalf of the Liberal Democracies of France and Britain so they wouldn't be under Fascist control. What else do you think the US was trying to get out of the War?

Military interventionism has been a feature of liberalism in practice since the Yugoslav wars. Whether its a feature of liberal "ideology" is more contentious, although there is certainly scope within liberal international relations theory to suggest that it is.

There is a scope for intervention in every modern political ideology, I guess unless there is some Pacifist government, but that is probably a Liberal Democracy anyways. It's just weird to be against interventionist wars and specifically call out Liberals for it. Yeah, Authoritarians are known for their non-interventionist policies alright *wink wink*.

I'm not trying to argue that Democrats were more or equally as responsible for the Iraq War as the Republican Party. I'm arguing that the breadth of support for Middle Eastern interventions since the year 2000 is significant enough for us to categorize said interventions as belonging to a liberal (or neoliberal if you prefer) school of foreign policy thought. The political coalition which supported military action against Hussein, the Taliban and later Assad and Gaddafi extended beyond the right wing establishment in DC.

Sure sure, you are trying to play some political football game here, I get it. But no, the Iraq War was the product of the Neo Conservative movement, which, while sharing Market Liberalism with Neo Liberals, are a distinctive political group with it's own constituency. Within the United States, just 15 years ago, this was very much a Right Wing project. I get you want to conflate by just blanket labeling all of the US as "Liberals" (again, playing political football) and saying they were all equally culpable for the policy, but there was a much clearer Left-Right divide on the ground.

The mainstream American right being more supportive than the mainstream American left of a fifteen year old interventionist strategy isn't particularly relevant if you hold anti-establishment views in 2019.

I don't think conservatives get to call "take backsies" on a war you directly supported 15 years ago, especially when someone is willing to deny they supported it back then. That isn't ancient history, most of the people alive then are alive now. They were ardent supporters of it while it was going on, forgive me for not believing they did a 180 in their ideology over a decade. Let me reiterate, this is not a different group of people, it is the same individuals as 15 years ago, more or less. The safer bet is Conservatives (in the US) don't think about it too hard and just support a war or not depending on the party suggesting it.

Compared to the brand of liberalism which existed between 1945 and 2001.

When was that? In the 50s and 60s with the Red Scare and Civil Rights issues? Or the 70s and 80s when the Gay Rights movement was gather steam? No identity politics here, no sir.

He was highlighting the hypocrisy of "globalist liberals" who are implicated in Middle Eastern misadventures invoking a supposed increase in violent rhetoric on social media to justify the marginalization of independent content creators. I don't think anyone here opposes the censoring of explicitly terrorist or violent material on social media: what we reject is the establishment's attempts to monopolize digital spaces by coercing big tech into adopting algorithms which undermine non-violent dissenting voices.

Ohhh, "establishment" I see. This clears up a lot. That's quite a claim, that the government is coercing big tech companies. How are they doing that, exactly? In the US, government has very little power over big corporations at the moment. You can thank the anti-regulation Right for that. Even Trump, who should be the bastion of Anti-Liberal ideology, is super against government regulation as are most of his supporters. They don't want corporate power reigned in, at least that isn't reflected in their policy at all. They just believe that there is some specific backlash against them that they want to pinch out; if they can do that they can happily go back to supporting Corporate power. If anything it is a good example of the "Postmodernist" bent to Conservatism recently, they are both for and against Market Liberalism, depending on how they think they can benefit politically.


It's funny, because I would otherwise be in support for adding regulation to curb corporate power in the US, but I am not so foolish to think that the Right is on my side to do so.

[Aexodus]

What else do you think the US was trying to get out of the War?

Making a profit and replacing the British Empire as the world’s leading economic superpower.

[The spartan]

Making a profit and replacing the British Empire as the world’s leading economic superpower.

No? I have never heard "making a profit" as a primary motivation of the Roosevelt administration leading up to war.

[Pontifex Maximus]

May those guilty of wrong think be crushed beneath the heel of progressivism!

[Cope]

I don't know if we should really get into this, but US involvement in the War was driven by the Roosevelt Administration's policy of repealing the Neutrality Acts of the 30s. The US was well on the path to war before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. And, obviously, they were there to fight on behalf of the Liberal Democracies of France and Britain so they wouldn't be under Fascist control. What else do you think the US was trying to get out of the War?

It has been firmly established that the motivations for liberal military interventionism in the 21st century are distinct from the conflict rationale of the Allies during the Second World War.

There is a scope for intervention in every modern political ideology, I guess unless there is some Pacifist government, but that is probably a Liberal Democracy anyways. It's just weird to be against interventionist wars and specifically call out Liberals for it. Yeah, Authoritarians are known for their non-interventionist policies alright *wink wink*.

Are you trying to argue that I don't have the right to criticize the historic foreign policies of my own government even though you also found fault with them? How bizarre.

Sure sure, you are trying to play some political football game here, I get it. But no, the Iraq War was the product of the Neo Conservative movement, which, while sharing Market Liberalism with Neo Liberals, are a distinctive political group with it's own constituency. Within the United States, just 15 years ago, this was very much a Right Wing project. I get you want to conflate by just blanket labeling all of the US as "Liberals" (again, playing political football) and saying they were all equally culpable for the policy, but there was a much clearer Left-Right divide on the ground.

I don't know why you're continuing to bang the party political drum. In the segment you're responding to I explicitly clarified that I had no intention of assigning equal responsibility to the Democratic Party as the GOP for the US's involvement in Iraq; you simply ignored that and accused me of it anyway. Nevertheless, it has by this point been well established that the conflict rationale of Anglo-American Middle Eastern interventionism (which includes the Bush doctrine) falls well within the general purview of global liberalism - irrespective of whether, for reasons of association, the categorization makes you uncomfortable.

I don't think conservatives get to call "take backsies" on a war you directly supported 15 years ago, especially when someone is willing to deny they supported it back then.

I didn't support the War in Iraq.

That isn't ancient history, most of the people alive then are alive now. They were ardent supporters of it while it was going on, forgive me for not believing they did a 180 in their ideology over a decade. Let me reiterate, this is not a different group of people, it is the same individuals as 15 years ago, more or less. The safer bet is Conservatives (in the US) don't think about it too hard and just support a war or not depending on the party suggesting it.

You're missing the point. The average view of mainstream conservatives in 2003 vis-a-vis the Iraq War isn't relevant to the rationale of an anti-establishment isolationist (Heathen Hammer) in 2019.

When was that? In the 50s and 60s with the Red Scare and Civil Rights issues? Or the 70s and 80s when the Gay Rights movement was gather steam? No identity politics here, no sir.

For all of its many faults, the liberalism of the post war era was anti-identitarian. It challenged, in good faith, group-based barriers and vicious collectivist regimes (such as the USSR) whilst trying to encourage self-determination, individual responsibility and free thought. By contrast, contemporary institutionalized liberalism has used the corrosive identity politics of the radical left for the purposes of financial and political profiteering.

Ohhh, "establishment" I see. This clears up a lot. That's quite a claim, that the government is coercing big tech companies. How are they doing that, exactly? In the US, government has very little power over big corporations at the moment. You can thank the anti-regulation Right for that. Even Trump, who should be the bastion of Anti-Liberal ideology, is super against government regulation as are most of his supporters. They don't want corporate power reigned in, at least that isn't reflected in their policy at all. They just believe that there is some specific backlash against them that they want to pinch out; if they can do that they can happily go back to supporting Corporate power. If anything it is a good example of the "Postmodernist" bent to Conservatism recently, they are both for and against Market Liberalism, depending on how they think they can benefit politically.

It's funny, because I would otherwise be in support for adding regulation to curb corporate power in the US, but I am not so foolish to think that the Right is on my side to do so.

This is more irrelevant party political ranting. Go and shout at Pontifex if you're angry at the Republican Party or Donald Trump: sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't voted for either in my life.

[The spartan]

It has been firmly established that the motivations for liberal military interventionism in the 21st century are distinct from the conflict rationale of the Allies during the Second World War.

By whom? The concept of Liberal Internationalism existed before WW2, and it's a pretty basic idea of promoting and defending Liberal Democratic governments so the Liberal principles will be upheld globally. President Woodrow Wilson thought this was a way of achieving more peace globally as Democratic governments appear less prone to instigating large wars. Roosevelt considered Nazi conquest in Europe to be against American interests and wanted to support the Liberal Democracies of France and Britain. FFS, the slogan for the armament deal with Britain was called "Arsenal of Democracy". But you are probably right, nothing to do with Liberal Internationalism whatsoever...

Are you trying to argue that I don't have the right to criticize the historic foreign policies of my own government even though you also found fault with them? How bizarre.

I don't think I ever mentioned your rights. You are also the one to jump in on a comment I had made towards HH, I didn't seek you out.

I don't know why you're continuing to bang the party political drum. In the segment you're responding to I explicitly clarified that I had no intention of assigning equal responsibility to the Democratic Party as the GOP for the US's involvement in Iraq; you simply ignored that and accused me of it anyway. Nevertheless, it has by this point been well established that the conflict rationale of Anglo-American Middle Eastern interventionism (which includes the Bush doctrine) falls well within the general purview of global liberalism - irrespective of whether, for reasons of association, the categorization makes you uncomfortable.

Because that was what the original comment was about? HH was trying to pin the Iraq War on what he considers Leftist ideology, which is why he used such terms as "Globalist Liberalism", and I was pointing out to him that it was Conservatives in the US that pushed for the war he was mentioning. Then you come in to defend a rather historically-confused individual (it's always fun when he says the American Civil War had little to do with slavery) for what seemed like the goal of conflating Conservative and Liberal (US political terms) roll in the Iraq war.

I didn't support the War in Iraq.

No? Well it was certainly the party platform and popular up until 2007 when they all decided they hated Bush suddenly before his terms were up. Now Conservatives mostly pretend they NEVER supported the war (that's all Globalist agenda stuff anyways!) despite them being ardent supporters at the time of the war itself. I have had multiple Conservative buddies try to pull this trick with me; they almost tried to make it seem as if this was some common ground they were trying to share with me. Sort of like this "hey, lets regulate the big bad corporations now" line being towed. I would then point out that I knew they didn't just vote for Bush in both elections, they made plenty of comments about how the war was necessary and how evil Saddam Hussein was at the time. They don't get to call take-backsies because national populism is the flavor of the month.

You're missing the point. The average view of mainstream conservatives in 2003 vis-a-vis the Iraq War isn't relevant to the rationale of an anti-establishment isolationist (Heathen Hammer) in 2019.

Why not? For the US, we are literally talking about most of the same constituency. I wasn't the one to bring up the Iraq War, either.

For all of its many faults, the liberalism of the post war era was anti-identitarian. It challenged, in good faith, group-based barriers and vicious collectivist regimes (such as the USSR) whilst trying to encourage self-determination, individual responsibility and free thought. By contrast, contemporary institutionalized liberalism has used the corrosive identity politics of the radical left for the purposes of financial and political profiteering.

I just pointed out that wasn't true, at least in the US. Already by the 50s Race became an important political issue during the Civil Rights, then you had 2nd wave Feminism and Gay rights not long after. Hell, the 60s-70s were when the concept of Protected Groups were codified into US law. Identity politics are not a new feature to Liberalism or probably any other ideology.

This is more irrelevant party political ranting. Go and shout at Pontifex if you're angry at the Republican Party or Donald Trump: sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't voted for either in my life.

Then why come in to defend HH in his ranting? It's not like I sought you out.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Then why come in to defend HH in his ranting? It's not like I sought you out.

The explanation is simple:

Everytime someone of the new Internationale is in trouble - this time consisting of right-wing conservatives -, a comrade citizen is coming to his aid.

[Cope]

By whom? The concept of Liberal Internationalism existed before WW2, and it's a pretty basic idea of promoting and defending Liberal Democratic governments so the Liberal principles will be upheld globally. President Woodrow Wilson thought this was a way of achieving more peace globally as Democratic governments appear less prone to instigating large wars. Roosevelt considered Nazi conquest in Europe to be against American interests and wanted to support the Liberal Democracies of France and Britain. FFS, the slogan for the armament deal with Britain was called "Arsenal of Democracy". But you are probably right, nothing to do with Liberal Internationalism whatsoever...p

There a few points to be made here:

1. Wilsonian theory was a prototype for contemporary liberal policies, but it failed prior to 1945. See the Treaty of Versailles, the collapse of the League of Nations and the rise of the Axis for further details.
2. Democracy does not necessarily imply "liberal democracy".
3. Mid-20th century liberalism is not synonymous with contemporary liberalism.

I don't think I ever mentioned your rights. You are also the one to jump in on a comment I had made towards HH, I didn't seek you out.

Why is my initiation of the conversation relevant to you criticizing me for chastising the a foreign policy which you also disagree with?

Because that was what the original comment was about? HH was trying to pin the Iraq War on what he considers Leftist ideology, which is why he used such terms as "Globalist Liberalism", and I was pointing out to him that it was Conservatives in the US that pushed for the war he was mentioning.

American conservatism is a constituent element of global liberalism and to the left of Heathen Hammer.

Then you come in to defend a rather historically-confused individual (it's always fun when he says the American Civil War had little to do with slavery) for what seemed like the goal of conflating Conservative and Liberal (US political terms) roll in the Iraq war.

I'm not defending him, I'm defending the argument. Global liberalism is broadly responsible for Western interventions in the Middle East since the turn of the century.

No? Well it was certainly the party platform and popular up until 2007 when they all decided they hated Bush suddenly before his terms were up.

I'm not a member of the Republican Party nor have I ever voted for them. I'm not disputing that Bush was the most significant figure involved in the orchestration of the Iraq War.

Now Conservatives mostly pretend they NEVER supported the war (that's all Globalist agenda stuff anyways!) despite them being ardent supporters at the time of the war itself. I have had multiple Conservative buddies try to pull this trick with me; they almost tried to make it seem as if this was some common ground they were trying to share with me. Sort of like this "hey, lets regulate the big bad corporations now" line being towed. I would then point out that I knew they didn't just vote for Bush in both elections, they made plenty of comments about how the war was necessary and how evil Saddam Hussein was at the time. They don't get to call take-backsies because national populism is the flavor of the month.

Whether or not someone favoured the Iraq War isn't relevant to whether or not there should be bipartisan support for the regulation of big tech. The only reason liberal interventionism was raised was to highlight the hypocrisy of multinational social media companies limiting the ability of independent content creators on the basis of "hate speech" whilst simultaneously providing institutionalized support to a political and media class which was directly responsible for destabilizing large swathes of a global region.

Why not? For the US, we are literally talking about most of the same constituency. I wasn't the one to bring up the Iraq War, either.

Neither of us are Republican Party supporters and he clearly isn't a conservative. Taking that into account, I don't see how conservative voter trends in the year 2003 are relevant.

I just pointed out that wasn't true, at least in the US. Already by the 50s Race became an important political issue during the Civil Rights, then you had 2nd wave Feminism and Gay rights not long after. Hell, the 60s-70s were when the concept of Protected Groups were codified into US law. Identity politics are not a new feature to Liberalism or probably any other ideology.

You're framing the dedicated backlash against institutionalized prejudice (which favoured heterosexual WASPs) as being identity politics. The Civil Rights movement and the sexual revolution were predicated on destroying historic identity class barriers, not dividing and isolating communities on the basis of race, religion or orientation. That's really what identity politics is. Far too many contemporary liberal leaders have decided either to embrace or ignore the toxic tribalism of the radical left rather than continue the legacy of their own movement.

Then why come in to defend HH in his ranting? It's not like I sought you out.

I'm not defending Heathen Hammer, I was defending a small portion of his argument.

[The spartan]

There a few points to be made here:

1. Wilsonian theory was a prototype for contemporary liberal policies, but it failed prior to 1945. See the Treaty of Versailles, the collapse of the League of Nations and the rise of the Axis for further details.
2. Democracy does not necessarily imply "liberal democracy".
3. Mid-20th century liberalism is not synonymous with contemporary liberalism.

You are really squirming here.
1. You asked about Liberal Internationalism and I gave you the history of the theory. Failed by Wilson or not, it accurately describes Roosevelt's ideology for the course of WW2.
2. In the case of the US, Britain, or France during WW2: it certainly does. I don't know why you are struggling so hard against this. Like, what's the point? A Liberal Democracy assisted like-minded governments against other ideologies hostile to it.
3. No decade of Liberalism is technically synonymous with any other decade of Liberals. Same is true of every single political ideology, but why are you splitting these hairs? Last time I checked, USA, France, and Britain were considered Liberal Democracies by historians even at the time. A big aspect of Fascism in Nazi Germany was a hostile attitude toward Liberal Democracies which were seen as Jewish ploys. They were considered Liberal; I am not particularly interested in your personal definitions or understanding of these events.

Why is my initiation of the conversation relevant to you criticizing me for chastising the a foreign policy which you also disagree with?

I am actually not entirely against intervention; I think it can be justified under certain circumstances, WW2 being one of them. There were plenty of Americans at the time who did not want to get involved in European affairs regardless of the threat of Fascism; they were wrong, it was a good thing for the US to get involved. The Iraq War (or Vietnam war, for that matter) was not that, obviously.

American conservatism is a constituent element of global liberalism and to the left of Heathen Hammer.

Okay? So under an extremely obtuse understanding of what "Liberalism" is, you could categorize every single political group as "leftist", including Neo Cons, and therefor make a roundabout statement about "leftist" being responsible for the Iraq War. Sure. The only problem is that that is really, really dumb. The US is considered far more Right-leaning by most of peer Nations, and it wasn't as if the Right in the US suspended their push against the legalization of Gay Marriage or abortion access to support the Iraq war. Hell, I have seen HH argue in favor of Freedom of Speech (gasp, a Liberal concept!), so I guess he is a Leftist now too, huh?

I'm not defending him, I'm defending the argument. Global liberalism is broadly responsible for Western interventions in the Middle East since the turn of the century.

Oh don't be glib. You already stated that you can't know what the world would have been like under a different politically ideology; perhaps there are less interventions with Global Liberalism than there would have been under some other ideology. In fact, it is probably the de-emphasis on the Nationalism that plagued Europe for so long that led us to this period literally called the Long Peace. Accusing Global Liberalism of being "broadly responsible" for a bad war seems kinda like a smear tactic. You could be much more specific about the actual policies that led to the war but you don't want to because you want to keep it at the broad "Global Liberalism bad" line. You even said that you could consider American conservatives, and therefor practically all Americans, as Liberals, so it seems as if the topic of your critique is far too broad.

I'm not a member of the Republican Party nor have I ever voted for them. I'm not disputing that Bush was the most significant figure involved in the orchestration of the Iraq War.

I don't care about your personal party affiliations (and I am guess you aren't American? I am not sure), it's immaterial, I care about how a huge chunk of my Nation handles itself politically.

Whether or not someone favoured the Iraq War isn't relevant to whether or not there should be bipartisan support for the regulation of big tech. The only reason liberal interventionism was raised was to highlight the hypocrisy of multinational social media companies limiting the ability of independent content creators on the basis of "hate speech" whilst simultaneously providing institutionalized support to a political and media class which was directly responsible for destabilizing large swathes of a global region.

If Conservatives actually wanted to propose legislation I would totally be willing to give it a read. If it's a good law, I will support it. But see, I don't think they are going to do that. As HH has shown, he just wants to complain about perceived persecution (he isn't even American) without offering any policy solutions. He just wants to wallow. And what do you mean "institutionalized support" to a "political and media class"? Are you talking about some specific legislation? What is it?

Neither of us are Republican Party supporters and he clearly isn't a conservative. Taking that into account, I don't see how conservative voter trends in the year 2003 are relevant.

I already said, we are talking about a huge swath of the same constituency. How could it not be relevant, we are talking about the same people.

My guess is HH's actual ideology is based on reactionary attitudes toward "SJWs" (progressive Left), which I think applies to you to some extent as well, which makes him much more sympathetic to the current "postmodernist" conservative platform which is mostly based on Anti-SJW attitudes as well. This is how he can both claim he is staunchly against government corruption but give a pass to Trump for attempting to interfere with investigations, or defend the Nationalist Austrian party that accepted bribes in that other thread. He is against government corruption...unless he thinks it can benefit him then he is for it. Partisanship is the platform for him. I think the political pragmatism of the situation is what appeals to you: HH is a useful idiot to push positions that would not have as much of a chance without all this political chaos.

You're framing the dedicated backlash against institutionalized prejudice (which favoured heterosexual WASPs) as being identity politics. The Civil Rights movement and the sexual revolution were predicated on destroying historic identity class barriers, not dividing and isolating communities on the basis of race, religion or orientation. That's really what identity politics is. Far too many contemporary liberal leaders have decided either to embrace or ignore the toxic tribalism of the radical left rather than continue the legacy of their own movement.

It's literally Identity Politics. Let's quote wiki here:

The term identity politics has been used in political discourse since at least the 1970s.[5] One aim of identity politics has been for those feeling oppressed by and actively suffering under systemic social inequities to articulate their suffering and felt oppression in terms of their own experience by processes of consciousness-raising and collective action.

I don't know why you are squirming and trying to split hairs again. There are plenty of criticisms to level at Identity Politics over the years, but it is also clearly about the Civil Rights movement, 2nd Wave Feminism, and Gay Rights movement throughout the decades. Those things were referred to as "Identity Politics" since the 70s, it's not new like you are suggesting.

I'm not defending Heathen Hammer, I was defending a small portion of his argument.

Safe, very safe.

[Aexodus]

You even said that you could consider American conservatives, and therefor practically all Americans, as Liberals, so it seems as if the topic of your critique is far too broad.

Basically everyone in the US congress is some shade of liberal. Limited government, secularism, equality, freedom of speech. Very few people actually don’t believe in Liberalism.

I would say that the problem isn’t Liberalism, but the idea that universal values exist. They don’t.

[The spartan]

Basically everyone in the US congress is some shade of liberal. Limited government, secularism, equality, freedom of speech. Very few people actually don’t believe in Liberalism.

That's my point, if you want to get upset about Iraq War (and there is a lot to get upset about) and lay the issue of the war down at Liberalism's feet, you are doing a poor job of framing the issue. The US didn't HAVE to go to war in Iraq because it was a Liberal Democracy, policies and doctrines played out in a way to lead us to the war. If you want to critique anything, blame the specific doctrines that got us there and not Liberalism at large.

[Aexodus]

I literally said Liberalism isn’t the issue.

[The spartan]

I was agreeing with you, more or less. I use "you" as a 2nd person stand in. I was not trying to say you (personally), but you (hypothetically). I apologize if it seemed accusatory.

[Cope]

You are really squirming here.

1. You asked about Liberal Internationalism and I gave you the history of the theory. Failed by Wilson or not, it accurately describes Roosevelt's ideology for the course of WW2.
2. In the case of the US, Britain, or France during WW2: it certainly does. I don't know why you are struggling so hard against this. Like, what's the point? A Liberal Democracy assisted like-minded governments against other ideologies hostile to it.
3. No decade of Liberalism is technically synonymous with any other decade of Liberals. Same is true of every single political ideology, but why are you splitting these hairs? Last time I checked, USA, France, and Britain were considered Liberal Democracies by historians even at the time. A big aspect of Fascism in Nazi Germany was a hostile attitude toward Liberal Democracies which were seen as Jewish ploys. They were considered Liberal; I am not particularly interested in your personal definitions or understanding of these events.

I don't know why you're insisting that the US's conflict motivations in the 1940's were the same as the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq in 2003. If they were - which they clearly weren't - then you'd be forced into conceding either that the Iraq War was justified or that the US's involvement in WWII wasn't.

I am actually not entirely against intervention; I think it can be justified under certain circumstances, WW2 being one of them. There were plenty of Americans at the time who did not want to get involved in European affairs regardless of the threat of Fascism; they were wrong, it was a good thing for the US to get involved.

The US didn't intervene in the Second World War, it was intervened against. Whether American citizens/politicians wanted to get involved or not is largely irrelevant: the fascist powers forced Washington's hand. I've already been clear on this point previously.

The Iraq War (or Vietnam war, for that matter) was not that, obviously.

Amen. I don't know why it took you so long to conclude that the Iraq War wasn't predicated on the same rationale as WWII.

Okay? So under an extremely obtuse understanding of what "Liberalism" is, you could categorize every single political group as "leftist", including Neo Cons, and therefor make a roundabout statement about "leftist" being responsible for the Iraq War. Sure. The only problem is that that is really, really dumb. The US is considered far more Right-leaning by most of peer Nations, and it wasn't as if the Right in the US suspended their push against the legalization of Gay Marriage or abortion access to support the Iraq war. Hell, I have seen HH argue in favor of Freedom of Speech (gasp, a Liberal concept!), so I guess he is a Leftist now too, huh?

In the scheme of global politics, American neo-conservatism isn't particularly right wing. Even the Tea Party was further to the right than Bush. More importantly, significant numbers of Europeans vote for nationalist parties like the AfD, the Rassemblement national or the Lega Nord - all of which are further to the right than the Bush administration and, unlike the libertarian wing of the GOP, are actually electorally relevant. So you really don't have to look far to find consequential voting blocs in the West which view American neo-conservatism as being leftist.

Oh don't be glib. You already stated that you can't know what the world would have been like under a different politically ideology; perhaps there are less interventions with Global Liberalism than there would have been under some other ideology. In fact, it is probably the de-emphasis on the Nationalism that plagued Europe for so long that led us to this period literally called the Long Peace. Accusing Global Liberalism of being "broadly responsible" for a bad war seems kinda like a smear tactic. You could be much more specific about the actual policies that led to the war but you don't want to because you want to keep it at the broad "Global Liberalism bad" line. You even said that you could consider American conservatives, and therefor practically all Americans, as Liberals, so it seems as if the topic of your critique is far too broad.

Criticizing Anglo-American 21st century foreign policy in the Middle East is neither a "smear tactic" nor an invitation to fascism. I tried to offer you the theoretical liberal basis for interventionism (democratization, humanitarianism, secularism and collective security) but you just ignored it and insisted that it was all just a neo-conservative plot which had nothing to do with liberalism. This was despite the fact that I linked you to the intellectual case (as made by Hitchens) and the political case (as made by Blair).

I don't care about your personal party affiliations (and I am guess you aren't American? I am not sure), it's immaterial, I care about how a huge chunk of my Nation handles itself politically.

The point being made was a general commentary on liberal interventionism in the Middle East: it was not intended to be party political. You interjected party politics and my "personal affiliations" into the conversation.

If Conservatives actually wanted to propose legislation I would totally be willing to give it a read. If it's a good law, I will support it. But see, I don't think they are going to do that. As HH has shown, he just wants to complain about perceived persecution (he isn't even American) without offering any policy solutions. He just wants to wallow. And what do you mean "institutionalized support" to a "political and media class"? Are you talking about some specific legislation? What is it?

I'm talking about the institutional favouritism that multinational social media companies like Facebook and YouTube show toward established political movements, advertisers and media outlets. I lament the fact that a space which used to empower independent thinkers is, by virtue of collusion and strong arming, being increasingly monopolized by the same corporate dross which dominates television and radio. Furthermore, I oppose the lies about "extremism" and "terrorism" which are used as an excuse to justify the marginalization of free lance critics.

My guess is HH's actual ideology is based on reactionary attitudes toward "SJWs" (progressive Left), which I think applies to you to some extent as well, which makes him much more sympathetic to the current "postmodernist" conservative platform which is mostly based on Anti-SJW attitudes as well. This is how he can both claim he is staunchly against government corruption but give a pass to Trump for attempting to interfere with investigations, or defend the Nationalist Austrian party that accepted bribes in that other thread. He is against government corruption...unless he thinks it can benefit him then he is for it. Partisanship is the platform for him. I think the political pragmatism of the situation is what appeals to you: HH is a useful idiot to push positions that would not have as much of a chance without all this political chaos.

The political pragmatism of what situation?

It's literally Identity Politics. Let's quote wiki here:

I don't know why you are squirming and trying to split hairs again. There are plenty of criticisms to level at Identity Politics over the years, but it is also clearly about the Civil Rights movement, 2nd Wave Feminism, and Gay Rights movement throughout the decades. Those things were referred to as "Identity Politics" since the 70s, it's not new like you are suggesting.

You're once again implying that linguistics trump contextual relevance. As I've clarified, whether or not you choose to classify the Civil Rights movement and/or the sexual revolution as "identity politics" isn't relevant to my criticisms of contemporary liberalism: it's the specific form that the politics has adopted over the past twenty years that I oppose, not just anything that could conceivably be classified as identitarianism. According to the partial definition you provided, for instance, medieval peasant rebellions and the Bolshevik revolution could be included under the title of "identity politics", but the context should make it clear that my critique doesn't include them either.

Safe, very safe.

It's just a fact.

[Heathen Hammer]

Basically everyone in the US congress is some shade of liberal. Limited government, secularism, equality, freedom of speech. Very few people actually don’t believe in Liberalism.

I would say that the problem isn’t Liberalism, but the idea that universal values exist. They don’t.

To make things more clear - ideologies can't be a problem by virtue of being non-physical entities.
My argument was based on neo-orwelian take that attempts to justify big tech's attempt to suppress "dangerous" ideas, since if we view ideas by how much unjust violence they caused, liberalism is an undisputed leader.
In reality real problem isn't liberalism per se (as conventional liberalism is mainly maintained by libertarianism, while neoliberalism/neoconservatism is basically ideology to justify oligarchy), it is the political establishment behind it.