When did "Liberal" become a bad word?

Calhoun

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem is that it's used as an adjective by complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument. Liberal this, liberal that; but no examples of that they mean, when it's been highlighted that their view point is flawed and their ideas are short-sighted and badly planned.

Think about it: if someone were to use the phrase "conservative" something as an insult, you'd wonder what they were talking about.

In Ireland and on these forums they don't use conservative they use alt-right as the label to insult.

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem is that it's used as an adjective by complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument. Liberal this, liberal that; but no examples of that they mean, when it's been highlighted that their view point is flawed and their ideas are short-sighted and badly planned.

Think about it: if someone were to use the phrase "conservative" something as an insult, you'd wonder what they were talking about.

And nobody ever used neoconservative as an insult?
Or neoliberal? Which is actually just a term for conservative economics.
What about racist? Fascist? Nazi? Thatcherite?

I think you need to take some blinkers off.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's some serious verbal gymnastics to get that out of what I said. It's not about who you are, it's about what right you want to enjoy. If two people want to go about their daily lives that's fines. If one of those people decide that their daily lives involve abusing or harassing the other that is not fine.

That’s street harassment. I think. Political debate is another matter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Calhoun wrote: »

In Ireland and on these forums they don't use conservative they use alt-right as the label to insult.

Alt-right is not the same as conservative, and I specifcially said when used as an adjective.

odyssey06 wrote: »

And nobody ever used neoconservative as an insult?
Or neoliberal? Which is actually just a term for conservative economics.
What about racist? Fascist? Nazi? Thatcherite?

I think you need to take some blinkers off.

Bit of a slippery slope here. Neoliberal and anarchist are not the same as liberal and fascist and nazi are not the same as conservative.

Case in point: you here people moan about and blame things on liberal media, when did you last read someone blame things on neoliberal meida?

If the only why you can deal with my argument is by exaggerating it, then you've kind of missed the point.




---

I'd consider myself liberal on most things, probably centre-left politically, but that doesnt make me neo-anything.

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bit of a slippery slope here. Neoliberal and anarchist are not the same as liberal and fascist and nazi are not the same as conservative.
If the only why you can deal with my argument is by exaggerating it, then you've kind of missed the point.

What's your opinion of "Liberals" who use the fascist and nazi and alt-right and conservative as synonymous? Who shout "no free speech for fascists" at conservatives whose ideas they don't even try to understand'?
Are they "complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument" too?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

odyssey06 wrote: »

What's your opinion of "Liberals" who use the fascist and nazi and alt-right and conservative as synonymous? Who shout "no free speech for fascists" at conservatives whose ideas they don't even try to understand'?
Are they "complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument" too?

Oh, absolutely.

But AGAIN: calling someone a nazi is using the word as a noun. I'm refering to the use of the word liberal as an adjective.

Also, you're comparing calling someone an extremist as an insult with calling something as a much milder political stance as an insult.

Would you say that nazi and liberal are the same distance from centre on the political spectrum?

Ipso

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh, absolutely.

But AGAIN: calling someone a nazi is using the word as a noun. I'm refering to the use of the word liberal as an adjective.

Also, you're comparing calling someone an extremist with calling something as a much milder political stance.

It's down to guilt by association. It's an attempt to discredit people to lump them in with the crazies on their side of the spectrum.
When people say someone is right wing, more often than not it's a way of saying Nazi without going full Godwin.

Einstrahlung50

Calhoun wrote: »

In Ireland and on these forums they don't use conservative they use alt-right as the label to insult.

Ask them how the alternative right differs from the right and they haven't a clue.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ipso wrote: »

It's down to guilt by association. It's an attempt to discredit people to lump them in with the crazies on their side of the spectrum.
When people say someone is right wing, more often than not it's a way of saying Nazi without going full Godwin.

That happens on both sides (although admittedly more to the right, as you highlight) - someone immediately exaggerated liberal to neoliberal at the top of that page.

But we ARE talking about the use of the word "liberal" according to the title; and it does get used as an insult a lot, by people who have no idea what the word actually means and can not give any examples fo what they mean.

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh, absolutely.
But AGAIN: calling someone a nazi is using the word as a noun. I'm refering to the use of the word liberal as an adjective.
Also, you're comparing calling someone an extremist as an insult with calling something as a much milder political stance as an insult.
Would you say that nazi and liberal are the same distance from centre on the political spectrum?

That would depend on how large the L in the liberal is

I have definitely seen and heard thatcherite, neoconservative and neoliberal used in that way, as an adjective implying opprobrium, used by those on the 'left' towards those on the 'right', in economics and foreign policy. I don't think the 'adjective' approach is a tactic exclusively of the right in any country.

ps I think you have misunderstood my reference to neoliberal, it's actually used by those on the left to refer to reagan style economics

Gbear

Ipso wrote: »

But aren't conservatives agin the government telling people what to do, but many want to tell married people what they should do.
Not having a go at conservatives specifically, but I think labels are thrown around too easily (not meant in a self help type way).
Every topic is now broken down into to different areas; left/right, liberal/conservative.
There is no nuance or grey areas anymore, every single complicated topic can only be approached from one of two ways.

There might be a few exceptions, but I think conservatism is by its nature incompatible with liberalism and libertarianism.

It's puzzling to me that they've managed to become intermingled in the US scene, because if you want to maintain the status quo, you can only really do it through the authoritarian apparatus of the state

The Christian Right in particular, but broadly speaking the Right in general in the US, and also in the UK and Ireland, seek to maintain or introduce prohibitions at governmental level to curb behaviour they see as sinful, or immoral.

Their position generally doesn't concern itself with human rights but, rather, moral absolutism in the pursuit of a virtuous society. There's a certain degree of collectivism in that, with society possessing a sort of pseudo-personhood giving it rights that need to be defended, rather than the liberal position which sees society as an abstract of the individuals within it.

The horshoe theory, of left and right being similar at the extremes, is down to that sense off collectivism, IMO, because they both attempt to impose norms to 'fix' society in general, even at the expense of the individual.

I say I'm puzzled by the conflation of libertarian and conservative, but it's not that big a mystery. There's pseudo-fascist, corporatist elements in the US that espouse the low-regulation, low-tax elements of libertarianism and pay lip-service to the idea of freedom off the back of that, however it's all completely hollow when their position is enabled by a powerful state for their money to influence, and they're perfectly fine with big government when it's facilitating state monopolies or sabotaging the free market in areas such as renewable energy.

Actual libertarians are hitching themselves to this horse but long term, I think they'd be better off sticking with the left and the Democrats, because although they overtly espouse a certain degree of authoritarianism in the pursuit of equality, I think they'd likely create a society with a much healthier and educated population, and a less corrupt political system. I think you can go from that towards libertarianism, but I don't think you can with the sort of neo-feudalism being pursued by the Republicans or Conservatives.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That happens on both sides (although admittedly more to the right, as you highlight) - someone immediately exaggerated liberal to neoliberal at the top of that page.

I'd have to disagree. Both sides (Left/Right) are equally quick to assign labels to anyone who disagrees with them. They tend to deal in absolutes and people are not really allowed to be a mixture of the two. If you support capital punishment, then you automatically support every other part of being "right winged". and Viceversa.

But we ARE talking about the use of the word "liberal" according to the title; and it does get used as an insult a lot, by people who have no idea what the word actually means and can not give any examples fo what they mean.

The meaning of the word has changed many times over the last two decades, and really comes down to the perception of those involved. And the lack of examples, is a mass generalisation.

When I was a teen/20s I was conservative with liberal leanings on certain issues. However, due to the way things have swung, I'd be perceived as being pure conservative. I'd also be considered on the right. It doesn't matter that I support a variety of issues from both perspectives, and I think anyone who goes extreme on either side is a muppet, but I will be thrown into a particular camp. It also doesn't matter that I'm essentially non-political but I'll be dumped in with political groups on the right nonetheless.

Being Liberal is not the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago. TBH I suspect nobody really knows what it means anymore, and that it doesn't really matter in the slightest. People are just going to dismiss your opinions as long as you oppose theirs.

Ipso

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have to disagree. Both sides (Left/Right) are equally quick to assign labels to anyone who disagrees with them. They tend to deal in absolutes and people are not really allowed to be a mixture of the two. If you support capital punishment, then you automatically support every other part of being "right winged". and Viceversa.



The meaning of the word has changed many times over the last two decades, and really comes down to the perception of those involved. And the lack of examples, is a mass generalisation.

When I was a teen/20s I was conservative with liberal leanings on certain issues. However, due to the way things have swung, I'd be perceived as being pure conservative. I'd also be considered on the right. It doesn't matter that I support a variety of issues from both perspectives, and I think anyone who goes extreme on either side is a muppet, but I will be thrown into a particular camp. It also doesn't matter that I'm essentially non-political but I'll be dumped in with political groups on the right nonetheless.

Being Liberal is not the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago. TBH I suspect nobody really knows what it means anymore, and that it doesn't really matter in the slightest. People are just going to dismiss your opinions as long as you oppose theirs.

Tribalism is what it is. Just make people who disagree with you the “other” and they are pariahs.

Billy86

Einstrahlung50 wrote: »

Ask them how the alternative right differs from the right and they haven't a clue.

It's been covered many, many times - the alt-right is a rebranding of white supremacism, the founder of which is banned from all of Schengen on account of his organising neo Nazi rallies in Hungary. The rebranding was initially successful and until their masks kept slipping.

'The right' are conservatives of all forms, which would include the alt-right as a subset (just as groups like communists would be a subset of 'the left'). It's pretty basic stuff.

WinnyThePoo

anti-intellectualism should be considered bad

FunLover18

From my experience on social media and the internet in general, 'liberal' is used as a bad word or a jibe by those who bemoan the censorship of free speech and (again from MY OWN EXPERIENCE) many of them, when they say 'free speech' they mean 'free speech without consequence', they are referring to their apparent right to use hateful and discriminatory language without the being called out on it. Not only this but they believe that everyone should have the right to broadcast their opinions to the world and their views should not only be tolerated but go unchallenged. When someone does challenge them, they are the first to cry 'Snowflake' or 'Social justice warrior' (a term which I assume they use ironically).

This is just my experience of course and I should state that I agree both sides of the conservative/liberal divide can be deeply hypocritical and downright nasty. I agree with previous posters that's far too much resorting to name calling and there needs to be nuance in political discourse as well as more discourse.

Calhoun

FunLover18 wrote: »

From my experience on social media and the internet in general, 'liberal' is used as a bad word or a jibe by those who bemoan the censorship of free speech and (again from MY OWN EXPERIENCE) many of them, when they say 'free speech' they mean 'free speech without consequence', they are referring to their apparent right to use hateful and discriminatory language without the being called out on it. Not only this but they believe that everyone should have the right to broadcast their opinions to the world and their views should not only be tolerated but go unchallenged. When someone does challenge them, they are the first to cry 'Snowflake' or 'Social justice warrior' (a term which I assume they use ironically).

This is just my experience of course and I should state that I agree both sides of the conservative/liberal divide can be deeply hypocritical and downright nasty. I agree with previous posters that's far too much resorting to name calling and there needs to be nuance in political discourse as well as more discourse.

Yet at the same time from the other side we see exactly the same behavior, except alt-right, Nazi, Facist is seeing as been used.

I think for the most part both are now using labels to discredit the other but its something i see as starting on the left and with the more liberal minded folks to shut others down.

Liberals on the other hand seem to believe in a hierarchy of victimhood (can't remember the official name for it) and depending on where you fall on the hierarchy you have more credibility in what you say.

That is equally as dangerous as someone who feels they can say what they want regardless of who they hurt.

Einstrahlung50

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been covered many, many times - the alt-right is a rebranding of white supremacism, the founder of which is banned from all of Schengen on account of his organising neo Nazi rallies in Hungary. The rebranding was initially successful and until their masks kept slipping.

'The right' are conservatives of all forms, which would include the alt-right as a subset (just as groups like communists would be a subset of 'the left'). It's pretty basic stuff.

Strange then that so many people who use the term can't answer the question.

rossie1977

When I think of liberal I think of the Dutch.

The word liberal has been so muddled by the right in America so much that anyone slightly left of Ted Cruz is now labeled liberal. Liberal/socialist/communist I see used hand in hand to describe same thing.

Hillary Clinton, Obama would be considered moderate conservative corporatists in Western Europe.

Sweetemotion

rossie1977 wrote: »

When I think of liberal I think of the Dutch.

The word liberal has been so muddled by the right in America so much that anyone slightly left of Ted Cruz is now labeled liberal. Liberal/socialist/communist I see used hand in hand to describe same thing.

Hillary Clinton, Obama would be considered moderate conservative corporatists in Western Europe.

What muddled the word liberal was the race to see who was the most liberalist of them all.

kuntboy

Lux23 wrote: »

At the very least, libertarianism is essentially a school of thought that legitimises behaving disrespectfully towards different groups in society. Freedom of speech so I can refer to gay people as pansies, women as pussy and much, much worse.

Modern radical left liberals hide their authoritarianism behind the guise of "fairness" or "respect". When, under heavy pressure from their relentless propaganda campaign, the high priest quacktologists of the American Psychiatric Association have redefined yet another mental illness as "normal" for the latest version of their religious bible that is the DSM, the lefties then use that as a new weapon in their mission to reshape society as THEY see fit.

They go into a rage if anyone dares reject this, probably because so many are spoiled brat millennials whose parents gave them everything they ever wanted. Standard "debating" tactic is the immediate labelling of anyone who dares dissent.

marieholmfan

kuntboy wrote: »

Modern radical left liberals hide their authoritarianism behind the guise of "fairness" or "respect". When, under heavy pressure from their relentless propaganda campaign, the high priest quacktologists of the American Psychiatric Association have redefined yet another mental illness as "normal" for the latest version of their religious bible that is the DSM, the lefties then use that as a new weapon in their mission to reshape society as THEY see fit.

They go into a rage if anyone dares reject this, probably because so many are spoiled brat millennials whose parents gave them everything they ever wanted. Standard "debating" tactic is the immediate labelling of anyone who dares dissent.

So you don't like psychiatrists hmmmm.:D

Harry Palmr

kuntboy wrote: »

Modern radical left liberals hide their authoritarianism behind the guise of "fairness" or "respect". When, under heavy pressure from their relentless propaganda campaign, the high priest quacktologists of the American Psychiatric Association have redefined yet another mental illness as "normal" for the latest version of their religious bible that is the DSM, the lefties then use that as a new weapon in their mission to reshape society as THEY see fit.

They go into a rage if anyone dares reject this, probably because so many are spoiled brat millennials whose parents gave them everything they ever wanted. Standard "debating" tactic is the immediate labelling of anyone who dares dissent.

Classic conflation! The left are the left, they are not Liberals.

Billy86

Einstrahlung50 wrote: »

Strange then that so many people who use the term can't answer the question.

Actually most can and have, as I said I've seen it answered tonnes of times on here.

The more noticeable one by a distance is AH posters who consider anything left of the Trumpian lunacy in the US at the moment to be "far left", "liberal commies" etc, seemingly just parroting words they heard the man on the youtube video say, without knowing what they mean. This thread has multiple examples, but then again so does almost every thread where these posters get go on a mission to get themselves triggered and all wound up.

Hector Bellend

It became a bad word when they started acting like douches

Wibbs

rossie1977 wrote: »

The word liberal has been so muddled by the right in America so much that anyone slightly left of Ted Cruz is now labeled liberal.

the left have muddled it too IMH. What really muddled it is American politics over the last ten twenty years and the oft wholesale importation of that nonsense into other countries via the interwebs. TBH I cringe when I read or hear an Irish person use these American buzzwords of all kinds on all sides. This is not America. shalalala. We may wear jeans and baseball caps and increasingly speak with a mid Atlantic twang, but it's nearly all surface, Ireland and Europe are very different societies and have very different political and social landscapes.

Personally I'd see myself as more of an old style "liberal". I try to avoid extremes but I'd be damned near a "commie" on some points for some Americans and a "nazi" on others for some European left leaning types. I'd be somewhere in the middle between a collectivist and individualist. I see extremes or both being bad for society and indeed the individual.

Wibbs

Hector Bellend wrote: »

It became a bad word when they started acting like douches

There are a lot of "douches" to going around on all sides of the extremist political landscape. Far fewer in the middle.

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

I see extremes or both being bad for society and indeed the individual.

I think extremism of any sort is unhelpful, extremism only leads to conflict and never resolution.

Be that religious, political, dietary or whatever else you can come up with.

Tom Mann Centuria

Wibbs wrote: »

There are a lot of "douches" to going around on all sides of the extremist political landscape. Far fewer in the middle.

I think there are just as many centrist douches, they are just harder to nail down because they tend to do/say whatever keeps them in power and don't actually believe very much at all.

wexie

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

I think there are just as many centrist douches, they are just harder to nail down because they tend to do/say whatever keeps them in power and don't actually believe very much at all.

are you referring specifically to centrist douches or centrists in general?

I think there's a difference between people (and especially politicians) who sit in the center because it's safe and people who simply have centrist views and opinions. In the first case I'd agree with you, second not so much.

RWCNT

kuntboy wrote: »

Modern radical left liberals hide their authoritarianism behind the guise of "fairness" or "respect". When, under heavy pressure from their relentless propaganda campaign, the high priest quacktologists of the American Psychiatric Association have redefined yet another mental illness as "normal" for the latest version of their religious bible that is the DSM, the lefties then use that as a new weapon in their mission to reshape society as THEY see fit.

They go into a rage if anyone dares reject this, probably because so many are spoiled brat millennials whose parents gave them everything they ever wanted. Standard "debating" tactic is the immediate labelling of anyone who dares dissent.

The fact you start right off the bat with the oxymoron of "Radical left liberals" really goes to show you don't know what you're talking about here.

Then "quacktologists" and some assumptive basic-bitch snark about "spoiled brat millennials". You should copy-paste this into the comments of a video by Paul Joseph Watson or someone of his ilk, it would go down a treat.

theyoungchap

I think what all sides of liberal v conservative debate are missing is that good old sayings "each to their own" and "live and let live".

Wibbs

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

I think there are just as many centrist douches, they are just harder to nail down because they tend to do/say whatever keeps them in power and don't actually believe very much at all.

Ahh that's politicians T, that demographic is a super strong magnet for muppets. I meant folks in general.

Hector Bellend

Wibbs wrote: »

There are a lot of "douches" to going around on all sides of the extremist political landscape. Far fewer in the middle.

Wherever there are people there are douches

Taytoland

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

There are a lot of "douches" to going around on all sides of the extremist political landscape. Far fewer in the middle.

I think there are just as many centrist douches, they are just harder to nail down because they tend to do/say whatever keeps them in power and don't actually believe very much at all.

Good point. Just look at Theresa May. Doesn't believe in anything worth of note, no convictions. At least Corbyn believes in something, even if I do think his ideas are wrong.

riffmongous

Douche, now there's another annoying modern imported term. What's wrong with bollix?

super_furry

This entire conversation is pointless because it's being represented through American politics.

Here's an example Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez caused a big shock when she won the New York district primary election to determine who stands against the Republicans in November’s midterms for a seat in Congress. She's now being painted by the likes of Fox News as an out of control socialist who wants to destroy America.

This is the graphic they used to try and discredit her and prove that she's some crazy communist ....



Almost every bullet point there is the standard position of every mainstream party in Ireland. Nationalised health, ending homelessness, campaign finance rules, free education, women's rights, LGBT rights, no private prisons, enviromental laws, they're all things that aren't even issues here because they're taken for granted.

Ireland and Irish politics is, through an American perspective, massively socialist and when their right-wing media go on about 'liberals' and internet people adopt their arguments, they're just not applicable here.

Taytoland

Well elect her if you want the country to go to pot. Free housing for all, right, so how is that going to be paid for? That is why people work to put a roof over their head. Free higher education, again how will the schools run and be of the required standard when it's just handed to you?

A guaranteed Federal job, so not equality of opportunity, equality of outcome which I can not agree with. 

[font=arial, sans-serif]"Under a [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]federal jobs guarantee[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] program, the [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]U.S. government[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] would [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]guarantee[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] a [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]job[/font][font=arial, sans-serif]with a living wage and good benefits to any resident who wants or needs one,"[/font]

super_furry

Taytoland wrote: »

Well elect her if you want the country to go to pot.

I'm not American. She isn't relevant to the Irish political scene. This conversation isn't relevant.

People get so wrapped up in their American political communities life that they seem to forget where they actually live.

Taytoland

super_furry wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Well elect her if you want the country to go to pot.  

I'm not American. She isn't relevant. This conversation isn't relevant.

People get so wrapped up in their American political communities life that they seem to forget where they actually live.

Wouldn't matter if it's the moon, many people here wouldn't agree with some of those policies purely on economic grounds and practical reasons.

WinnyThePoo

Taytoland wrote: »

Wouldn't matter if it's the moon, many people here wouldn't agree with some of those policies purely on economic grounds and practical reasons.

Do expand pepe.

riffmongous

Taytoland wrote: »

Well elect her if you want the country to go to pot. Free housing for all, right, so how is that going to be paid for? That is why people work to put a roof over their head. Free higher education, again how will the schools run and be of the required standard when it's just handed to you?

A guaranteed Federal job, so not equality of opportunity, equality of outcome which I can not agree with. 

Not free housing, but accommodation is a human right in Ireland as far as I can see, and there is also free higher education already..

super_furry

Taytoland wrote: »

Wouldn't matter if it's the moon, many people here wouldn't agree with some of those policies purely on economic grounds and practical reasons.

But where does your obsession with the American political scene and viewing everything through the prism of the American Republican party and American right-wing political personalities come from? You do recognise at least that none of this is relevant here?

You mention "A guaranteed Federal job, so not equality of opportunity, equality of outcome which I can not agree with." Again, focusing on American issues when on this same island, in Northern Ireland, the single biggest employer is the public service.

wexie

riffmongous wrote: »

Not free housing, but accommodation is a human right in Ireland as far as I can see, and there is also free higher education already..

Articles 25 and 26 :

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

:rolleyes:

Wanderer78

riffmongous wrote: »

Not free housing, but accommodation is a human right in Ireland as far as I can see, and there is also free higher education already..

most parents i know would seriously question this one! lets not delude ourselves now, the word 'free' has actually changed meaning in the modern world, it generally means not all that free or not free at all

riffmongous

Wanderer78 wrote: »

most parents i know would seriously question this one! lets not delude ourselves now, the word 'free' has actually changed meaning in the modern world, it generally means not all that free or not free at all

Yeah I remember myself years ago the additional 'administrative' (or whatever it was called) charges, but it was still fundamentally free, a student who was coming from outside the EU and had to pay the actual fees in addition to the other charges faced a massive bill.

That charge could also be refunded if you were on a grant

Taytoland

super_furry wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Wouldn't matter if it's the moon, many people here wouldn't agree with some of those policies purely on economic grounds and practical reasons.

But where does your obsession with the American political scene and viewing everything through the prism of the American Republican party and American right-wing political personalities come from? You do recognise at least that none of this is relevant here?

You mention "A guaranteed Federal job, so not equality of opportunity, equality of outcome which I can not agree with." Again, focusing on American issues when on this same island, in Northern Ireland, the single biggest employer is the public service.

I don't really care for American politics or personalities that much, it's just an interesting country, that's all.

riffmongous wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Well elect her if you want the country to go to pot. Free housing for all, right, so how is that going to be paid for? That is why people work to put a roof over their head. Free higher education, again how will the schools run and be of the required standard when it's just handed to you?

A guaranteed Federal job, so not equality of opportunity, equality of outcome which I can not agree with. 

Not free housing, but accommodation is a human right in Ireland as far as I can see, and there is also free higher education already..

Define accommodation, explain the thousands of homeless people in Ireland.

Wanderer78

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah I remember myself years ago the additional 'administrative' (or whatever it was called) charges, but it was still fundamentally free, a student who was coming from outside the EU and had to pay the actual fees in addition to the other charges faced a massive bill

we band around this term 'free' a lot, but are these things really all that 'free'?;)

RIGOLO

When did "liberal" become a bad word...
When the likes of Eamon Ryan became a spokesman for it. 

He distances moderates and middle of the road people , as his hypocrisy knows no bounds. 
Liberals and greens would be far better served if he was off the airwaves spouting nonsense on their behalf.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been covered many, many times - the alt-right is a rebranding of white supremacism, the founder of which is banned from all of Schengen on account of his organising neo Nazi rallies in Hungary. The rebranding was initially successful and until their masks kept slipping.

'The right' are conservatives of all forms, which would include the alt-right as a subset (just as groups like communists would be a subset of 'the left'). It's pretty basic stuff.

The alt right was not in fact originally white nationalist, although Richard Spencer did claim it. It’s a title imposed on a group of beliefs rather than any kind of self describing movement. Basically people on twitter who mocked the left. There were many beliefs in there.

Back to the modern use of liberal - I’d prefer (and tend to use) Americanist left for the US identity politics nonsense lately imported into these fair shores, although it’s an unwieldy term for sure.