things you're secretly kinda absurdly liberal about

yr wet pinko bleeding heart fantasties in here

punishment is pointless

mayonnaise

The condiment or the Smashing Pumpkins song?

the First Amendment.

Religion.

In what way?

Just to elaborate on mine: punishment qua punishment is pointless. Deterrence is questionable. Incapacitation via incarceration is useful in a small minority of cases. Rehabilitation/restorative justice is where 99% of our energies should be going.

I mean that I don't judge people based on their religion. What does it mean to be "liberal"? Does it mean politically liberal or personally liberal? The question could be taken either way.

politically i guess. as much as the other threads anyway.

Taboo words are stupid. Non-discriminatory profanity should be ok in all situations, yeah even from children. maybe that's more libertarian idk.

You might be a liberal if...

Just to elaborate on mine: punishment qua punishment is pointless. Deterrence is questionable. Incapacitation via incarceration is useful in a small minority of cases. Rehabilitation/restorative justice is where 99% of our energies should be going.

― ledge, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 14:17 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, pretty much.

Markets

do what you like with other consenting adults, up to & including eating them for all i care.

Probably best to have a signed note from them first, mind.

kind of everything...

liberal and pinko are not the same thing, you running dog lackeys

free trade
free movement of people
free movement of ideas

(can't have any in isolation)

there should be no "marriage" by the state, of anyone

yes

aye, good one.

indeed, just a contract, freely entered into, between two people

Just to elaborate on mine: punishment qua punishment is pointless. Deterrence is questionable. Incapacitation via incarceration is useful in a small minority of cases. Rehabilitation/restorative justice is where 99% of our energies should be going.

― ledge, Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:17 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this, though i do see real value in deterrence. don't want ppl doing something? give them a good reason not to.

But we pretty much know it doesn't work for capital punishment, right? Haven't investigated much for non capital crimes but when the conviction rate is well under 50% - for reported crimes, itself probably under 50% of the total committed - it's not looking good for yr criminal believing that he's gonna get his just desserts.

a lot of the things mentioned itt have nothing to do with contemporary liberal politics tho. radical freedom shit about cannibalism yay, and state limiting shit like marriage boo, that all goes in libertarian thread.

this is for liberal shit, progressive shit, commie pinko shit.

i wanna tax the fuck out of the rich.
i wanna regulate the fuck out of business, especially banks & finance.
i want my government to provide an effective safety net for everybody.
i want my government to provide good jobs and wages for the unemployed.
businesses and corporations are not people. only people are people.
i want to dramatically reduce our standing army, defund bases.
i want to sink tons of money into R&D in tons of industries.
i want to aggressively limit the production of greenhouse gasses, even if it's bad for business.
i want to fund the holy living fuck out of alternative energy.
i want to hold polluters responsible for the full cost of all damage they do.
i want the EPA to be much more powerful than it is.
i want stupid money for public schools and universities.

But we pretty much know it doesn't work for capital punishment, right? Haven't investigated much for non capital crimes but when the conviction rate is well under 50% - for reported crimes, itself probably under 50% of the total committed - it's not looking good for yr criminal believing that he's gonna get his just desserts.

i don't know that we do know that it doesn't work for capital punishment. we'd have to run like a hundred year study on a large group for whom murder carried no criminal penalty. see if that increased the likelihood. i don't know that it would for murder, but murder is a rather special crime. of course i don't know, but i suspect that the deterrent value of punishment for many crimes increases as the severity of the crime decreases. i probably wouldn't kill people if i knew there wouldn't be a civil penalty, but i very well might shoplift. easy example = kids in a candy store. are they more or less likely to steal candy if they know in advance that they will be punished for stealing candy if caught?

Fair points, what I should say of course is that no punishment != no consequences - or alternatively, what do we mean by punishment? If the kids stealing from a candy store are given a firm talking to/have to meet with the store owner then ok; if they're given six of the best then not ok.

i don't know that we do know that it doesn't work for capital punishment. we'd have to run like a hundred year study on a large group for whom murder carried no criminal penalty. see if that increased the likelihood.

But the choices aren't "capital punishment" vs. "no punishment," they're "capital punishment" vs. "incarceration," and we've already run that study by having states with no death penalty vs. states with the death penalty.

A very bare bones, base-level life (government-provided housing, clothing, food, etc.) is provided to everyone who wants it. Maybe this should also include illicit substances which are now legal (albeit highly regulated). Basically, the strata of society that opts out of work is cared for but completely cut off from private enterprise until/unless they opt back in.

stupid money for public schools, particularly wrt to teacher pay. public school teaching should be high-paid and competitive imo.

not sure where this would fit on the political scale, but designing US life around consumerism and endless work instead of family, community, and free time. find life pretty pointless when it's all about working 50-52 weeks out of the year and buying useless crap to make up for it.

the point of the other threads was challops, this is just 'say stuff everyone agrees w/'

But the choices aren't "capital punishment" vs. "no punishment," they're "capital punishment" vs. "incarceration," and we've already run that study by having states with no death penalty vs. states with the death penalty.

oh, but that only compares one sort of penalty vs. another. it doesn't address the value of deterrence in general, just the relative deterrence values of different penalties. i think capital punishment is horseshit, but i very much believe in deterrence as a principle. even non-punitive deterrence. quickly cleaning up graffiti and damage to public spaces seems to strongly deter vandalism.

took liberal to mean 'whatever ppl should be able to do without govt interference' tbh, tho that seems to be libertarianism as well.

strip all money out of politics. outlaw paid lobbying and campaign contributions, fuck free speech. you want your congressperson to do something for you, write him or her a letter.

while on the campaign trail, all travel expenses for candidates should be comped. airtime should be granted to all candidates on an equal basis, free of cost. everything else is up to yr street team, who must be unpaid.

xp thinking more about social liberalism, govt interference is all fine and dandy if its for the good of society.

took liberal to mean 'whatever ppl should be able to do without govt interference' tbh

maybe this is another US/UK thing? in america, liberalism = all government, all the time. we are secret communists and we hate success. we take your money and we give it to the undeserving so that the terrorists win lol.

sounds fair imo