21–30 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. You might as well call a libertarian a classical socialist (in the style of Benjamin Tucker).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation.
And I see no problem with that. Why would being liberal mean to support extreme leftist regulatory policy here? Why would we consider, letting those government officials, who may not have the expertise understanding the subject at hand, in this case technology, dictate how business should run and put harness on it, as part of the package of being liberal?
The social-democracy has wandered worldwide from its economical foundation to another set of causes: ecologism, feminism and identity politics. In the USA the democrats are holding, but in Europe most socialist parties are having a bad time.
Now Hillary (news that have been downvoted here to death) says that maybe inmigration should be curbed to avoid the raising of populism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation.
> liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's insulting about saying someone from a middle class background (presumably in the United States) is "not as familiar with the depths of extreme poverty or working class families as I am." To me, this sounds like a shared opinion based on personal experience.
It was said in a different direction. People who hold political opinion X must be from this background because they don’t understand the issue like I do. I’m from a working class background and arrived at a different conclusion in my own experience. But I get lumped in with people raised upper middle class just because I couldn’t possibly have such opinions. Granted, this is why I try not to be defensive about it: wh…
He didn't say they must come from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. You might as well call a libertarian a classical socialist (in the style of Benjamin Tucker).
> Research found that the tech elites responded with the same anti-regulatory zeal when questioned about other industries as well, as in a question about whether florists should be able to raise prices on flowers during holiday seasons. Is that actually a law somewhere?
The so-called socially liberal, fiscally conservative is just Liberalism as conceived of by Locke and gang.
It reminds me of the old Norm MacDonald joke where because of abortions and the death penalty, there’s no way for him to vote for a party where nobody is killed.
It shouldn’t be a secret that the most fundamental political division of modern times is between labor and caapital, and that Silicon Valley culture is squarely on the side of capital.
Seems like a weird juxtaposition to me that the word “liberal” is being used to imply the support of more government regulations when by definition those restrictions are restricting someone’s freedoms (sometimes for the best IMO). It reminds me of the old Norm MacDonald joke where because of abortions and the death penalty, there’s no way for him to vote for a party where nobody is killed.