A Classical Liberal & A Progressive Marxist Debate

TheStruggle

Yellow Card
Banned
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
28,152
Reaction score
0
0*tcmRApi7VleukoDN.




This debate at Mythcon I think is a good example of the difference in liberalism today. You have 'liberals' who actually base their ideals on the idea of liberty and freedom, and then you have 'liberals' who have adopted the Marxist aka Progressive ideals of 'Equality' and collectivism.

This will not be the full transcript of the debate, links to the full transcript is below and the full video you can watch on your own.

Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) vs Thomas Smith (Channel Atheism)


This first excerpt, I think, does a great job setting the tone for the rest of the debate.

Thomas: “You’re not a liberal. The liberal stance is that systemic discrimination is a problem. That’s one big part of it.”

Carl: “That’s not the liberal stance, that’s the Marxist stance.”

Thomas: “Unbelievable…”


Right off the bat, it’s clear that Thomas and Carl have incredibly different views on what “liberal” means, and for now, I’m absolutely open to Thomas’ viewpoint, even though I am a fan of Carl’s and agree with his.


Thomas: “Intersectionality is literally the thing that makes [feminism] more individualistic.”

Carl: “That is absolutely absurd, and I can’t believe you just said that.”

Thomas: “Do you want to let me tell you why that argument is true? Intersectionality makes us more individual. Instead of being ‘men vs. women’, instead of being ‘black vs. white’, intersectionality allows us to say ‘men have different experiences than women. Black people have different experiences than white people. Black women have different experiences than white women. Poor white women have different experiences than black women. That’s intersectionality. Intersectionality let’s you break down identities in more dynamic ways.”

Carl: “Are you even listening to yourself? You are collectivizing all of these people, and you’re saying that’s individualism? It’s not. It’s the antithesis of individualism.”

Thomas: “It’s literally the opposite of what you just said. It’s allowing people’s identity to be multifaceted. It’s allowing socioeconomic status to be part of it, it’s allowing race to be a part of it, it’s allowing gender to be part of it.”

Carl: “Again, you’re categorizing them into classes, Thomas.”

Thomas: “Yea.”

Carl: “That’s collectivism. That’s not individualism.”

Thomas: “What I’m saying is that intersectionality is what gets us that more intricate level of identity.”


Carl: “Of control, yes! But individualism is that people should be free. Do you not get how all of this is completely antithetical to the concept of liberty? Let’s get down to the principle, you are not for freedom. You are for equality of outcome rather than liberty. That is the fundamental issue of our time, and you should probably know that.”



Thomas seems to think that because he groups people into an infinite number of categories, that he is granting them individuality, not realizing that it is the act of categorizing people into the permutation of group that he sees as meaningful that is stripping them of their individuality.

Thomas: “If we’re going to talk about how to make society better, we — “


Carl: “We’re not. We’re going to talk about how to make society free!”

Carl: “Racial discrimination is bad no matter who it is happening to. It’s not a defensible position.”

Thomas: “The status quo discriminates. I’m in favor of making things more equal.”

Carl: “Ok, I’m not. I’m in favor of making things more free.”

Thomas: “Freedom entails discrimination. Freedom allows White Men to control everything.”

Carl: “Oh my god. ”

It seems that Thomas disapproves of freedom because “it allows White Men to control everything.”







 
As I said yesterday, classical liberals would not be democrats in 2017. The progressives are FAR too authoritarian
 
It would be funny if Thomas (a white male) was having this debate with a colored (black, brown, yellow etc) Carl. Then Carl (colored man) could say. "Okay then in your argument you as a white man, in this debate, can only use half your argument points and give the other half to me. Is that a liberal debate"?
 
This kind of thing is just weird to me. Both of these guys suck. One of them seems underprepared for the counterpoints made, and the other one is an attention seeker. It's weird to see either one of these guys with any type of fanbase. So basically we have an idiot arguing against a man with no decency.
 
classical liberal isn't a real thing. It is just liberals re-branding as conservatives.
 
classical liberal isn't a real thing. It is just liberals re-branding as conservatives.


Except Carl isn't a conservative and doesn't agree with conservatives, he just rejects progressives moving the goalposts on what it means to be a 'liberal' which to them is Neo-Marxism.
 
Except Carl isn't a conservative and doesn't agree with conservatives, he just rejects progressives moving the goalposts on what it means to be a 'liberal' which to them is Neo-Marxism.
Carl seems to only crtitique people on the left and his main topic of concern seems to be SJWs. He is Dave Rubin but less gay.
 
Carl seems to only crtitique people on the left and his main topic of concern seems to be SJWs. He is Dave Rubin but less gay.


Because they are trying to fix the left not the right, they don't agree with conservatives so why try to 'fix' them? The see the left is going batshit crazy into Marxism and they are calling them out. Would you have a problem with Conservatives calling out the far right? They are calling out the far left
 
To be Liberal in US means something else. Far left started calling themselves that so it would be easier to sell their ideology to the general public.

The fat guy is a liberal, a real one.
 
Great Thread Topic.

I'm not a big fan of Sargon, but judging from what I have read he was really strong in that debate. He is usually terrible off-script.
 
I do want to watch this, and I am a fan of Sargon, but my one quick part I disagree with him is on this:

Thomas: “If we’re going to talk about how to make society better, we — “
Carl: “We’re not. We’re going to talk about how to make society free!”​

Any morally or ethically defensible political philosophy, should always be about optimizing well being, "or making society better". It's an axiom, that if removed renders the debate useless.
Acknowledging this does not favor any specific philosophy over another, and it doesn't even specify what specifically a "better society" is.

Free society is a principle that holds weight, because it leads to well being or "make(s) society better".
 
You know what would be a hilarious read? If we rounded up every WR poster who uses the word "Marxist" more than once per week, and made each of them write a one page essay describing Marxism.
 
You know what would be a hilarious read? If we rounded up every WR poster who uses the word "Marxist" more than once per week, and made each of them write a one page essay describing Marxism.

Heh. That would be good. Right off the bat, I think anyone who uses "cultural Marxism" is already showing that they're clueless.
 
You know what would be a hilarious read? If we rounded up every WR poster who uses the word "Marxist" more than once per week, and made each of them write a one page essay describing Marxism.

Heh. That would be good. Right off the bat, I think anyone who uses "cultural Marxism" is already showing that they're clueless.


And the apologists show up on cue. Everyone is Alt-Right but nobody is a Marxist...got it
 
You know what would be a hilarious read? If we rounded up every WR poster who uses the word "Marxist" more than once per week, and made each of them write a one page essay describing Marxism.

What about @Defanged? He uses it in every post.
 
And the apologists show up on cue. Everyone is Alt-Right but nobody is a Marxist...got it

I'm a Marxist. Come at me.

(not really, I haven't been a bona fide Marxist in years, but there's still enough there to carry the label)

Also, almost everybody is Marxist to some varying degree due to how greatly Marx penetrated social, political, and economic thought.

From Che:

When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist or a biologist when asked if he is a "Newtonian," or if he is a "Pasteurian". There are truths so evident, so much a part of people's knowledge, that it is now useless to discuss themOne ought to be "Marxist' with the same naturalness with which one is "Newtonian" in physics, or "Pasteurian" in biology, considering that if facts determine new concepts, these new concepts will never divest themselves of that portion of truth possessed by the older concepts they have outdated.
 
Heh. That would be good. Right off the bat, I think anyone who uses "cultural Marxism" is already showing that they're clueless.

I've been here for a while now, and I still have no fucking idea what the common theme is when that term is being used.
 
Back
Top