Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[TSJohnson]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

 

[Meathead]

Ding-bat premise. Where the hell do such hacks come from?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become.

Dafuq?

I'm guessing he picked this one up in a college class.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

 

[orogenicman]

Whether or not one agrees with the OP, I think the school yard bully routines are:

1) Unnecessary;

2) Boring;

3) Intentionally degrading;

4) A sad commentary on the state of the conservative mind these days.

Can we please have some adult discussion for a change?

As for the OP, I think you confuse definitions. When people talk about a liberal bias, I am pretty sure they are referring to what end of a political spectrum one's opinions lean. If someone identifies as a conservative, one could say that person has a conservative bias in political matters. One could make a similar argument wrt those with liberal leanings.

 

[Mac1958]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

 

[Mac1958]

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't have any real defense so you fall back on ad hominem. Typical con...

Welcome to the intellectually bankrupt world of conservatism.

 

[Bfgrn]

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

 

[Mac1958]

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

 

[Mac1958]

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

 

[Bfgrn]

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

The Right blamed anti-war activism as helping the enemy and hurting our troops.

You blamed anti-law enforcement brutality activists for getting cops killed.

There is no difference in the two, and,

either both of you were right or both of you were wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

I dunno, it seems pretty equatable to me. You blame people protesting injustice for the murder of two police officers. How is that any different than the rabid right wingers blaming terrorism on those opposed to the war? I too was opposed to the Iraq war from the onset. I was called a terrorist sympathizer and was accused of giving aid and comfort to our enemies because of that opposition. I'm sure you had similar experiences.

And yet here you are a decade later doing the same thing.

 

[Mac1958]

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

I dunno, it seems pretty equatable to me. You blame people protesting injustice for the murder of two police officers. How is that any different than the rabid right wingers blaming terrorism on those opposed to the war? I too was opposed to the Iraq war from the onset. I was called a terrorist sympathizer and was accused of giving aid and comfort to our enemies because of that opposition. I'm sure you had similar experiences.

And yet here you are a decade later doing the same thing.

But Mac is above it all. He must not be questioned, he is the questioner.