Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Hyperliberalism – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,434
edited April 27 in General
Hyperliberalism – politicalbetting.com

“The New Leviathans” is a book by John Gray. It is not an easy read. It is overwritten and despite its short length it is too long, taking frequent digressions: so much so in fact it may be two books mashed into one or repurposed. But it does introduce the concept of “hyperliberalism”:

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • (1/5)

    Personally I think there is a high amount of “shy Labour” out there. This won’t be relevant now but will be in 2029 I think.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,321
    Hi, @viewcode here. I have to pop out and will answer criticisms on my return. It was a difficult review to write, complicated by the fact that the text was extremely clotted and may actually be gibberish. I've done my best to put a structure to it and it seems to make sense but there's a possibility I am reviewing my sensible interpretation instead of the possibly senseless book. More when I return, but please feel free to comment and criticize in my absence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,138
    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Whereas the liberalism of Locke, who believed in liberty and limited government and basic rights and freedoms was also based on support for private property and experience and reason via empiricism (Locke buried near us in High Laver).
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,923
    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Why not go the whole hog and tell us the white race needs a strong leader to protect it?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,429
    viewcode said:

    Hi, @viewcode here. I have to pop out and will answer criticisms on my return. It was a difficult review to write, complicated by the fact that the text was extremely clotted and may actually be gibberish. I've done my best to put a structure to it and it seems to make sense but there's a possibility I am reviewing my sensible interpretation instead of the possibly senseless book. More when I return, but please feel free to comment and criticize in my absence.

    Many thanks for your header. I'm interested in the ideas but it sounds as though actually reading the book would be a challenge too far for me.

    Whilst I'm no scholar, I have read a certain amount of theology in my time. One consistent thing that stood out for me was that theologians tend to have very poor grammar and in my view, it's often the poor grammar rather than the complex thought that makes them hard to read/understand. Possibly relevant to this book.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • (2/5)

    I really think wokeism has reached its end. The UK to me seems to have come to a place in terms of the trans issue that 99% of people can live with.
  • viewcode said:

    I've done my best to put a structure to it and it seems to make sense but there's a possibility I am reviewing my sensible interpretation instead of the possibly senseless book.

    Your lived experience of the book is your truth and as valid as anyone else's.

  • FPT
    The bemused won’t have seen anything like that before. Not knowing what to do leaves us uncertain of how to behave. I’m not sure judging people by their unconsidered actions under exceptional circumstances is entirely fair.

    I’m just glad I’m not there too.

    Back to the header.
  • (3/5)

    Andy Burnham has chimed in on trans. What a helmet he is.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,875
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Why not go the whole hog and tell us the white race needs a strong leader to protect it?
    Because that would get him banned
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,698
    I see that the co-leader of the Greens has been wibbling on about trans rather than talking environmentalism.

    Just for a change.
  • (3/5)

    Honestly the threat to Labour from the Greens is completely zero. They are just completely out to lunch. Not a chance they take a significant amount of Labour votes in a campaign.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,154
    @cnn.com‬

    New CNN Poll: Trump's 41% approval rating is the lowest for any newly elected president at 100 days dating back at least to Eisenhower

    https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3lnsa6pxbi22e
  • Smart51Smart51 Posts: 71
    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,359

    I see that the co-leader of the Greens has been wibbling on about trans rather than talking environmentalism.

    Just for a change.

    Sounds like the King of the North has been wibbling on about trans rather than talking about, er, whatever it is Labour is supposed to stand for.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Why not go the whole hog and tell us the white race needs a strong leader to protect it?
    It's very telling that's where your mind immediately jumps to, and explains a lot why hyperliberals won't take on board any criticism whatsoever.
  • (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Why not go the whole hog and tell us the white race needs a strong leader to protect it?
    Because that would get him banned
    And because it's not true. @HYUFD is dogmatic and unbending at times, but he's no white supremacist.

    Also, what @Chris doesn't realise - and I seriously doubt ever will - is how framing any opposition to it in that way actually helps make it happen.

    It's how Trump and his brethren have come about.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,359
    edited April 27

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    That bad?!!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,364

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    Having a mare with the counting today?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,292
    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,292

    (3/5)

    Honestly the threat to Labour from the Greens is completely zero. They are just completely out to lunch. Not a chance they take a significant amount of Labour votes in a campaign.

    I don't think that the case, and we will see proof on Friday with the election results.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344

    (3/5)

    Andy Burnham has chimed in on trans. What a helmet he is.

    Indeed, he is simply the dregs of New Labour. A bullshitter par excellence. A Boris Johnson, if you like, with a Manc accent.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,292
    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.
    .

    Sounds suspiciously like Identity Politics to me.

    Or is it only not "Identity Politics" when it is about your narrow conception of national identity?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    It's JD Vance mania rubbing off on him because of the eyeliner.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,331
    Scott_xP said:

    @cnn.com‬

    New CNN Poll: Trump's 41% approval rating is the lowest for any newly elected president at 100 days dating back at least to Eisenhower

    https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3lnsa6pxbi22e

    'newly elected' is a bit of a fudge.

    having said that his approval rating will also be the lowest for any 're-elected after a gap president at 100 days' since 1892

    but what about 'presidents 100 days into their second term'?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,138
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Why not go the whole hog and tell us the white race needs a strong leader to protect it?
    Even non white Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch are emphasising the importance of our national identity and traditional gender roles there is nothing racist about it, indeed the most pro woke tend to be white graduates living in inner cities.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,138

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    Ashcroft had a recent poll with Burnham clear favourite amongst all voters and Labour voters to succeed Starmer. Rayner was second and Cooper, Streeting and Ed Miliband a distant third with Reeves and Lammy last behind Khan
    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2025/04/is-globalisation-over-and-who-will-gain-in-the-local-elections/
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,331
    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    There's a discussion between Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat from a few days ago that I think is relevant in parts:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ross-douthat.html

    Though it starts off with how Trump is seen as a 'man of destiny', and ends up with why it is (or isn't) a good idea to sign up to one of the organised religions that has 'stood the test of time'.

    I think you might find it interesting.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,577
    CNN poll: coming up on 100 days in office, Trump 41% approve, 59% disapprove.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRESxcAMkXY
  • Smart51Smart51 Posts: 71

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
  • (3/5)

    Honestly the threat to Labour from the Greens is completely zero. They are just completely out to lunch. Not a chance they take a significant amount of Labour votes in a campaign.

    I’m munching down on them red roses.
    :)

    50p on it?

    Tell you what, if I outperform labour I’ll donate double to the food bank. I normally give a fiver. It’s one of those bets I cannot lose.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,577
    kamski said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @cnn.com‬

    New CNN Poll: Trump's 41% approval rating is the lowest for any newly elected president at 100 days dating back at least to Eisenhower

    https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3lnsa6pxbi22e

    'newly elected' is a bit of a fudge.

    having said that his approval rating will also be the lowest for any 're-elected after a gap president at 100 days' since 1892

    but what about 'presidents 100 days into their second term'?
    Why is "newly elected" a fudge? He got elected - then got booted out - then got elected again. He had a new mandate, which the voters now have buyers remorse about giving him. Bigly.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,331
    Just a reminder that Scholz is still Chancellor.

    Merz declined the invitation to attend the Pope's funeral. I think it was because as he doesn't (yet) have much of an official position he would have been nowhere near the front at the ceremony itself, and he didn't want the photos of him on the back row. I think this reflects badly on him, as it was a missed opportunity to exchange words with other world leaders. Especially as he is the (Catholic) leader of the "Christian Democratic Union"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,292

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    That's why discussion in such terms is so pointless. Everyone makes up their own definition.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,331

    kamski said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @cnn.com‬

    New CNN Poll: Trump's 41% approval rating is the lowest for any newly elected president at 100 days dating back at least to Eisenhower

    https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3lnsa6pxbi22e

    'newly elected' is a bit of a fudge.

    having said that his approval rating will also be the lowest for any 're-elected after a gap president at 100 days' since 1892

    but what about 'presidents 100 days into their second term'?
    Why is "newly elected" a fudge? He got elected - then got booted out - then got elected again. He had a new mandate, which the voters now have buyers remorse about giving him. Bigly.
    Because you can choose to compare him to other 'newly elected' presidents who are all 100 days into their first term. In which case his approval rating is the worst since forever.

    Or you can compare him to other presidents 100 days into their second term. In which case his approval rating probably isn't?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    That's why discussion in such terms is so pointless. Everyone makes up their own definition.

    All political discourse is like that. It's not unique to wokeness.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,349

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    Interesting discussion featuring Trevor Phillips, part of which focuses on the different types of non white Brits academic achievements or otherwise

    https://youtu.be/YeJHuzLQb3g?si=vr_-yrGo6-wXJMtg
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,378

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    We've all heard of him, but have minimal idea what he has actually done- for good or ill.

    Much like Boris's appeal in 2019, a combination of name recognition and being a blank sheet we can project on.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,359

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    On a pedantic note I would have thought divorce rates in traveller communities were comparatively low?

    I hope you will be making the effort to see the world from the perspective of Renault owners.
  • Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    As a firm supporter of traditional family values and religious attendance then presumably I am neither Woke nor HyperLiberal.

    Who are these imaginary creatures that inhabit your brain?

    Does anyone describe themselves as HyperLiberal or Woke (using your definitions)? I know of no one like that.

    It becomes just as pointless as much discussion of Theology or Philosophy, when everyone uses terms differently. We might as well descend to the student politics of Rik in the Young Ones and just call each other Facist.
    Fascist!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401
    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    As a firm supporter of traditional family values and religious attendance then presumably I am neither Woke nor HyperLiberal.

    Who are these imaginary creatures that inhabit your brain?

    Does anyone describe themselves as HyperLiberal or Woke (using your definitions)? I know of no one like that.

    Haven't you just self-identified as Woke upthread?

    I don't think it's pointless. A simple level of recognition of the problem by you would be all it would take for me to move this discussion on.

    You got that in you?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    On a pedantic note I would have thought divorce rates in traveller communities were comparatively low?

    I hope you will be making the effort to see the world from the perspective of Renault owners.
    Now, you're going too far.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    I don't believe this post or your earlier lengthier post are accurate.

    Origins of woke from Wikipedia:

    "Woke is an adjective derived from African-American English used since the 1930s or earlier to refer to awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the construction stay woke. The term acquired political connotations by the 1970s and gained further popularity in the 2010s with the hashtag #staywoke."

    Suggesting that taking the knee in support of BLM warranted Trump Naziism is gaslighting in the extreme.
  • Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,309

    (2/5)

    I really think wokeism has reached its end. The UK to me seems to have come to a place in terms of the trans issue that 99% of people can live with.

    I think it’s very wishful thinking that it’s anything like approaching 99% of people. A sizeable majority, I completely agree. But recall that the “culture war” has made a lot of ‘progressives’ in society, and there will be a sizeable minority who aren’t on board with the guidance, and feel the Supreme Court ruling is wrong.

    “Wokeism ”is also not just the trans issue. There are plenty of other faultlines, though the trans issue has been the most visible in recent times.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.
    Of course we have agency. But why is that being exercised the way it is? The voting constituency for Trump is created, in part, by the unyielding behaviour of those he pledges to challenge.

    We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,331

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    "John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport" - source? because I heard him just the other day explicitly saying the opposite.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,679

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    He's less obviously departed from traditional Labour values - help for poorer people, higher taxes to finance the help, etc. While there's a market for Starmerist thinking - in particular, taxes unchanged as an article of faith - it's not where most members are.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.


    We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
    With all due respect that is bollocks.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

    Just this past Friday, a senior member of our railway company told me that south-west London is highly racially diverse, and that if we want to attract people from that community to our railway then we needed to ensure our railway reflects that diversity. And then they would come. They added that if, in doing so, we happen to alienate some of our current visitors, that's a trade-off worth making — because they're dinosaurs and we'd gain a broader, more diverse mix of visitors, which would ultimately be a positive outcome.

    Sound familiar?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.


    We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
    With all due respect that is bollocks.

    No. It isn't bollocks.

    The actions of hyperliberals are creating resentment which is absolutely creating a ready constituency for Trump. The resistance to this plain and simple fact I find fascinating: you are helping create the very monster you despise. Probably because you don't want to fact up to it.

    If you listened to people more and dropped the dogmatic policy his ravings would have no currency.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,866
    This thread is woke
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    As a firm supporter of traditional family values and religious attendance then presumably I am neither Woke nor HyperLiberal.

    Who are these imaginary creatures that inhabit your brain?

    Does anyone describe themselves as HyperLiberal or Woke (using your definitions)? I know of no one like that.

    It becomes just as pointless as much discussion of Theology or Philosophy, when everyone uses terms differently. We might as well descend to the student politics of Rik in the Young Ones and just call each other Facist.
    Fascist!
    He might think we all have a real problem with each others faces.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    I don't believe this post or your earlier lengthier post are accurate.

    Origins of woke from Wikipedia:

    "Woke is an adjective derived from African-American English used since the 1930s or earlier to refer to awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the construction stay woke. The term acquired political connotations by the 1970s and gained further popularity in the 2010s with the hashtag #staywoke."

    Suggesting that taking the knee in support of BLM warranted Trump Naziism is gaslighting in the extreme.
    You just need to go on a bit of a journey.

    I'm confident you'll get there.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,378

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.


    We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
    With all due respect that is bollocks.

    No. It isn't bollocks.

    The actions of hyperliberals are creating resentment which is absolutely creating a ready constituency for Trump. The resistance to this plain and simple fact I find fascinating: you are helping create the very monster you despise. Probably because you don't want to fact up to it.

    If you listened to people more and dropped the dogmatic policy his ravings would have no currency.
    The counterpoint is the Republican primary process. None of the candidates were woke, most of them were strong culture warriors. And yet Trump chewed them all up and spat them all out. Despite his many known downsides.

    The question of what the hell the American Right were thinking is an important one, but I'm unconvinced as to how much the woke left is the answer.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    "Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
    And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
    Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.


    We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
    With all due respect that is bollocks.

    No. It isn't bollocks.

    The actions of hyperliberals are creating resentment which is absolutely creating a ready constituency for Trump. The resistance to this plain and simple fact I find fascinating: you are helping create the very monster you despise. Probably because you don't want to fact up to it.

    If you listened to people more and dropped the dogmatic policy his ravings would have no currency.
    The counterpoint is the Republican primary process. None of the candidates were woke, most of them were strong culture warriors. And yet Trump chewed them all up and spat them all out. Despite his many known downsides.
    Because he's seen as the one most likely to successfully stand-up to the Liberals/Democrats and deliver.

    This stuff isn't hard. Some of what the woke left tried to do in America was insane.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,401
    Scott_xP said:
    That thread just highlights the problem @Leon has been saying for a while about BlueSky.

    All the comments are just everyone agreeing with each other.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,866

    Scott_xP said:
    That thread just highlights the problem @Leon has been saying for a while about BlueSky.

    All the comments are just everyone agreeing with each other.
    BlueSky is woke
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,573
    Thanks @viewcode

    I started Grey's book a few months ago but decided after while since I had never read Locke or Hobbes I was struggling.

    May give it another go after reading your header.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,849
    kinabalu said:

    This feels like one of those book reviews that's better than the book.

    Agreed. Thanks for the thread @viewcode, very clear summary and saves me reading the book (let's be honest, I would not have read it anyway, but this is a useful bluffer's guide).
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,474

    Scott_xP said:
    That thread just highlights the problem @Leon has been saying for a while about BlueSky.

    All the comments are just everyone agreeing with each other.
    BlueSky is woke
    I just saw a Mail headline

    "Keir Starmer's Ex Girlfriend Is Pro Trans Judge!"

    What does it even mean!

    Is the Sunday Mail really a newspaper?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344
    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:
    That thread just highlights the problem @Leon has been saying for a while about BlueSky.

    All the comments are just everyone agreeing with each other.
    BlueSky is woke
    I just saw a Mail headline

    "Keir Starmer's Ex Girlfriend Is Pro Trans Judge!"

    What does it even mean!

    Is the Sunday Mail really a newspaper?
    Starmer had girlfriends? Bastard!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,866

    The problem with the right’s endless wailing and gnashing against woke is this. Practically everyone agrees that the left have gone way too far. Chest feeding instead of breastfeeding was given to me as one example of stupid.

    Problem is that instead of “let’s stop saying stupid” the right give the impression that they want to go back to the good old days of being a twat to people for their crime of not being white male christian rich enough for them.

    One other thing- there is a generational aspect to this.

    Not everyone pushing back against woke hyperliberalism is a disgruntled baby boomer who hasn't taken a back seat ever in their life and resents being expected to now...

    ... but an awful lot are.
    I believe I can be described as woke by the people who use the term as an insult. I welcome it. But I am one of the people pushing back against its absurdist extremes.

    Another one: disabled people aren’t “differently abled”. That makes it sound like they are equal to able bodied people which is a terrible lie and deeply patronising.

    I’m against that. But the people who are loudly against it are really against disabled people. They don’t see why we have things like Motability. Or accessibility. Or equality laws which stop companies openly discriminating against the disabled.

    They’re the kind of people who shut down Remploy whilst advocating a market solution alternative whilst doing all the can to ensure the market can’t provide an alternative. Disabled people should simply go away and shut up. But no, lack of support for disabled people isn’t the issue, it’s a small number of morons using “differently abled” to describe them.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344
    edited April 27

    Scott_xP said:
    That thread just highlights the problem @Leon has been saying for a while about BlueSky.

    All the comments are just everyone agreeing with each other.
    Doesn't X demonstrate a similar opposite symmetry? X is all about Trump good, Dems bad. Woke bad, racism good. Israel good, Palestinians bad, Russia good, Zelenskyy bad.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,349

    The problem with the right’s endless wailing and gnashing against woke is this. Practically everyone agrees that the left have gone way too far. Chest feeding instead of breastfeeding was given to me as one example of stupid.

    Problem is that instead of “let’s stop saying stupid” the right give the impression that they want to go back to the good old days of being a twat to people for their crime of not being white male christian rich enough for them.

    Sounds to me like the only course of action is....

    CENTRISM!

    Just grown up, unfussy, sensibleness. Cant fail
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344
    isam said:

    The problem with the right’s endless wailing and gnashing against woke is this. Practically everyone agrees that the left have gone way too far. Chest feeding instead of breastfeeding was given to me as one example of stupid.

    Problem is that instead of “let’s stop saying stupid” the right give the impression that they want to go back to the good old days of being a twat to people for their crime of not being white male christian rich enough for them.

    Sounds to me like the only course of action is....

    CENTRISM!

    Just grown up, unfussy, sensibleness. Cant fail
    Welcome to the sunny side! Although we don't tend to have reservations about darker skinned people sharing our nation. Perhaps it's not for you after all.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,349

    isam said:

    The problem with the right’s endless wailing and gnashing against woke is this. Practically everyone agrees that the left have gone way too far. Chest feeding instead of breastfeeding was given to me as one example of stupid.

    Problem is that instead of “let’s stop saying stupid” the right give the impression that they want to go back to the good old days of being a twat to people for their crime of not being white male christian rich enough for them.

    Sounds to me like the only course of action is....

    CENTRISM!

    Just grown up, unfussy, sensibleness. Cant fail
    Welcome to the sunny side! Although we don't tend to have reservations about darker skinned people sharing our nation. Perhaps it's not for you after all.
    Oh that's nasty. You big bully :(
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,227
    'Don't charge your phone in Chinese electric cars', defence firms tell staff
    Fears over espionage from Beijing have led defence companies to advise staff to exercise caution if they own Chinese-built cars

    https://inews.co.uk/news/dont-charge-phones-chinese-electric-cars-3660462

    This follows the MoD banning Chinese EVs from car parks at sensitive sites.

    It may also be relevant to our discussion on an earlier thread about trusting or hacking self-driving cars for terrorism.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,866
    Reading a thread on all that the late Pope did for humanity. Compassion, humility, joy. Francis was woke.

    Happily now we can have people seeking a “MAGA pope”. A pope who can shout damnation onto people because of their sexuality and perspectives on society. A pope who can take God’s authority and say it how angry white men think God would want it, especially when you set aside all that Jesus woke DEI stuff.

    The world is going to miss Francis a lot.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344
    isam said:

    isam said:

    The problem with the right’s endless wailing and gnashing against woke is this. Practically everyone agrees that the left have gone way too far. Chest feeding instead of breastfeeding was given to me as one example of stupid.

    Problem is that instead of “let’s stop saying stupid” the right give the impression that they want to go back to the good old days of being a twat to people for their crime of not being white male christian rich enough for them.

    Sounds to me like the only course of action is....

    CENTRISM!

    Just grown up, unfussy, sensibleness. Cant fail
    Welcome to the sunny side! Although we don't tend to have reservations about darker skinned people sharing our nation. Perhaps it's not for you after all.
    Oh that's nasty. You big bully :(
    No, not at all. You are more than welcome to join the Federation of Centrist Dads and vote Liberal Democrat too. I am not entirely sure you are ready just yet.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,349

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The problem with the right’s endless wailing and gnashing against woke is this. Practically everyone agrees that the left have gone way too far. Chest feeding instead of breastfeeding was given to me as one example of stupid.

    Problem is that instead of “let’s stop saying stupid” the right give the impression that they want to go back to the good old days of being a twat to people for their crime of not being white male christian rich enough for them.

    Sounds to me like the only course of action is....

    CENTRISM!

    Just grown up, unfussy, sensibleness. Cant fail
    Welcome to the sunny side! Although we don't tend to have reservations about darker skinned people sharing our nation. Perhaps it's not for you after all.
    Oh that's nasty. You big bully :(
    No, not at all. You are more than welcome to join the Federation of Centrist Dads and vote Liberal Democrat too. I am not entirely sure you are ready just yet.
    Too kind
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,923
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    There is a danger extreme hyberliberalism and wokeism leads to a loss of national, religious and gender and family identity. In which case the rise of the strongman leader becomes necessary to restore order again.

    Why not go the whole hog and tell us the white race needs a strong leader to protect it?
    Even non white Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch are emphasising the importance of our national identity and traditional gender roles there is nothing racist about it, indeed the most pro woke tend to be white graduates living in inner cities.

    You must think we were all born yesterday.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,487

    Reading a thread on all that the late Pope did for humanity. Compassion, humility, joy. Francis was woke.

    Happily now we can have people seeking a “MAGA pope”. A pope who can shout damnation onto people because of their sexuality and perspectives on society. A pope who can take God’s authority and say it how angry white men think God would want it, especially when you set aside all that Jesus woke DEI stuff.

    The world is going to miss Francis a lot.

    After Charlie Hebdo, did the Pope not respond with a comment on blasphemy and retaliation that if a man insults his mother then he'll get a slap? I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure I heard that at the time.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,344

    CNN poll: coming up on 100 days in office, Trump 41% approve, 59% disapprove.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRESxcAMkXY

    A poll that tells us nothing more than 41% of Americans are f******' headers!
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,331
    kamski said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    "John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport" - source? because I heard him just the other day explicitly saying the opposite.

    It would be very disappointing if someone complained about other people being uninterested in evidence, and in the sane post made a (fairly implausible) claim without being able to back it up with any evidence. Losing my faith in PB.com
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,866
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    "John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport" - source? because I heard him just the other day explicitly saying the opposite.

    It would be very disappointing if someone complained about other people being uninterested in evidence, and in the sane post made a (fairly implausible) claim without being able to back it up with any evidence. Losing my faith in PB.com
    Speaking as a John Oliver fan, John Oliver got really boring rather quickly. Can we bring back the old version who was less preachy and more investigatey?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,487
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    "John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport" - source? because I heard him just the other day explicitly saying the opposite.

    It would be very disappointing if someone complained about other people being uninterested in evidence, and in the sane post made a (fairly implausible) claim without being able to back it up with any evidence. Losing my faith in PB.com
    I could've sworn someone linked to a video about that here.

    However it seems to no longer be available in the UK (and has comments turned off):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flSS1tjoxf0
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,929
    As a short diversion, here is an image in the occasional political landscape quiz.

    Where is the (very divisive) politics in this picture I took this morning? Location is in South Yorkshire.




  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,932

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    "John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport" - source? because I heard him just the other day explicitly saying the opposite.

    It would be very disappointing if someone complained about other people being uninterested in evidence, and in the sane post made a (fairly implausible) claim without being able to back it up with any evidence. Losing my faith in PB.com
    Speaking as a John Oliver fan, John Oliver got really boring rather quickly. Can we bring back the old version who was less preachy and more investigatey?
    I'd go further - just bring back the guy who was reasonably funny on Mock The Week before it all went America for him.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,698

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    He's less obviously departed from traditional Labour values - help for poorer people, higher taxes to finance the help, etc. While there's a market for Starmerist thinking - in particular, taxes unchanged as an article of faith - it's not where most members are.
    Burnham ran for the leadership, had a lacklustre campaign devoid of ideas, and lost to Corbyn.

    Enough said.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 5,712

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Smart51 said:

    Foxy said:

    Smart51 said:

    Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.

    I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.

    That isn't what "Woke" means.

    "Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.

    I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
    No, that's just what you want it to mean.
    What you want it to still mean is perhaps more fair.
    Yes, language evolves. And it's important — even necessary — to "wake-up" to the fact that others often face challenges you might not fully appreciate, and to genuinely try to see the world from their perspective. But that doesn't mean you must blindly accept rigid, ideological policy solutions in response. Which is what the Wokeists seems to demand.

    One vital point that's almost never discussed is the role of stable, hard-working nuclear families in creating strong outcomes — probably because this truth cuts against core liberal assumptions and risks sounding "judgmental." Yet it explains why Chinese and Indian families, who often emphasise these values, consistently outperform not just minority groups but even White families — while WWC, travellers, and Black families - the ones most likely to have split or broken family - often struggle most. This uncomfortable fact doesn't fit the cultural marxist narrative currently in vogue where structural racism must explain everything, and 'White Privilege' accounts for the lot.

    Today’s hyperliberals have unknowingly aligned themselves with cultural marxists — are uninterested in the evidence, and seem oblivious to the consequences.
    It's by no means the defininition of "woke", but the "uninterested in the evidence" is the key part of the mind set that fuels the culture war. Blaming racism for all the world's ills while analyses show that controlling for affluence is often all that is needed to explain differential outcomes, or John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport. The repeated assertions as unquestionable of things that can easily be rebutted makes intelligent debate impossible. I certainly have more than a few beams in my own eye, but I try to extract them when someone shows convincing evidence.
    "John Oliver trying to assert that men have no advantage over women in sport" - source? because I heard him just the other day explicitly saying the opposite.

    It would be very disappointing if someone complained about other people being uninterested in evidence, and in the sane post made a (fairly implausible) claim without being able to back it up with any evidence. Losing my faith in PB.com
    Speaking as a John Oliver fan, John Oliver got really boring rather quickly. Can we bring back the old version who was less preachy and more investigatey?
    I'd go further - just bring back the guy who was reasonably funny on Mock The Week before it all went America for him.
    He's paid $1m per episode for a show which airs 30 episodes per year. People will do anything for that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,138
    edited April 27

    (4/5)

    Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.

    He's less obviously departed from traditional Labour values - help for poorer people, higher taxes to finance the help, etc. While there's a market for Starmerist thinking - in particular, taxes unchanged as an article of faith - it's not where most members are.
    Burnham ran for the leadership, had a lacklustre campaign devoid of ideas, and lost to Corbyn.

    Enough said.
    He still beat Cooper and Kendall to be runner up.

    Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may well have beaten May's Tories in 2017 and won most seats and become PM.

    Corbyn however fell short despite gains and was heavily beaten in 2019 and probably cost Labour at least an extra 5-7 years out of power as a result
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,432

    Scott_xP said:
    That thread just highlights the problem @Leon has been saying for a while about BlueSky.

    All the comments are just everyone agreeing with each other.
    Doesn't X demonstrate a similar opposite symmetry? X is all about Trump good, Dems bad. Woke bad, racism good. Israel good, Palestinians bad, Russia good, Zelenskyy bad.
    Indeed: the problem is that the town hall of Twitter splintered. It used to be that you got all political voices there. Now you should see the vitriol lashed out to people who (for example) point out that Russia invaded Ukraine.

    And therefore people of a certain political persuasion chose to leave.

    Pretty much any criticism of Blue Sky is also true of Twitter, just from the opposite political point of view. (With the exception, of course, that Elon is quite happy to silence right wing voices too, if they have the temerity to argue with him in public.)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,266
    A question - what have *you* done to assist people with different, but honest political views?

    - at university I helped organise student demos. Nearly all were things I disagreed with. But I thought it was my job as a union officer to help them demonstrate safely.

    - some little time later, a friend was a tree climbing environmental protestor. I was worried about the equipment (or lack thereof) - so I bought her a climbing harness and gear as a birthday present. The chap in the shop was pretending that he wasn’t a protestor himself… the look on his face when I paid with an oil company corporate card was something.

    - my eldest daughter got into the BLM thing. I ended up defending her going on a demo from my youngest - who isn’t a follower and pointed out that importing US politics into the U.K. is usually bollocks. In the end helped her and her friends with transport and budget (ha!)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,138

    Reading a thread on all that the late Pope did for humanity. Compassion, humility, joy. Francis was woke.

    Happily now we can have people seeking a “MAGA pope”. A pope who can shout damnation onto people because of their sexuality and perspectives on society. A pope who can take God’s authority and say it how angry white men think God would want it, especially when you set aside all that Jesus woke DEI stuff.

    The world is going to miss Francis a lot.

    Though there is a strong possibility the next Pope will be black African or Filipino
Sign In or Register to comment.