Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I will point it out next time it comes across that way.
Look at your posts in the zoning skid. You have many posts arguing that people are justified in being upset. You don’t take the anti-zoning position but you argue against people arguing for zoning changes by suggesting people are reasonable to be upset while leaving your support of zoning changes to be a one liner.
So the perception is you agree with those who don’t want to change because that is what you spend your time discussing. Essentially it allows you to argue the position while being able to say you don’t hold the position.
Classic liberalism essentially is just libertarianism touting the elimination of the restriction of government in people’s lives. It is a fairly right wing economic stance and laisiz fair on economic issues. So if it makes you feel better to call yourself classically liberal go ahead.
|
I believe reasonable people can disagree about important things. The overriding aim of a liberal society is to find a way for people who disagree about important things to get along so our society and public institutions can continue to function without tearing itself to pieces. The habit of treating people who disagree with you as enemies and then attributing the worst motives to them - which is how political discourse typically goes online - is illiberal. Which is why I often take issue with it.
I’ve said I approve of the blanket rezoning of Calgary. But I don’t think most of the people who don’t want to see their street rezoned are contemptible, stupid, or malicious. Showing some empathy for them isn’t conservative - it’s liberal.
And again, that outlook is not rare out in the real world. Lots and lots of voters are moderates. They’re just less likely to engage in political discourse online than highly partisan types.
https://www.deseret.com/2022/1/14/22...s-republicans/