Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

[Dubayoo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/opinion/sunday/millennials-freedom-fear.html

First off, I don't buy this being a wave of the alt-right.  At the very least, "free-dumb" has been mocked for the past 5-10 years against the anti-intellectual right in the sense of wanting deregulation from egotistical stupidity.  This came from mockery of libertarianism where rational choice free will advocates were told they were ridiculous for not accepting the psychology of the masses which institutional professionals advocated so much.  On one hand, there were those who denied it outright in claiming people were smart enough to make their own decisions.  On the other, there were those who said the exceptions to the rule deserved freedom from having to go with the flow.  In both cases, the mockery happened whether because of how stupid so many people were, or to torment the exceptions by compelling them to suffer among the masses.

Before this, however, there was strong support of freedom by the left.  I'd say this was approximately from 2005-1995.  The point was to tolerate wise guy antics getting out of control and saying you can't socially regulate people's behavior because that infringes on their freedom.  It was the onset of punk culture which strongly resonates among the alt-right today despite all its clamoring against degeneracy, something which is especially seen on the 4chan community...

...and it even bleeds into the flip on Russia.

Before, when the War in Iraq happened, for example, it was the left that argued in favor of authoritarian multiculturalism through cultural relativism in saying we have to tolerate seemingly oppressive regimes around the world because they supposedly just have a different way of understanding responsible governance.  Whether it was in Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, or the countless corrupt regimes among the third world, these countries were said to just be different, not wrong.

This changed when Russia became an apparently socially conservative country.  It no longer held onto the remains of the Soviet Union.  It was a reactionary country that was remembering the traditional motto of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality."  Likewise, radical Islamists who the left conventionally embraced were being dismissed by the left and associated with the right.  The right was accused of being Islamofascist when it insisted on disciplining uncivil behavior...

...such as restricting indecent free speech as in the case of stirring public nuisances.

This "fear of freedom" by millennials isn't authentic.  It's just a gigantic act.  The point is to just be melodramatic while exploiting the anticipated lack of discipline they will endure because people are too awkward and lazy to punish them.

After all, doesn't this ring a bell?

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/what-!@#$-riots-punk-prayer-really-said/264562/

Edited November 6, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Big Brother]

Who are you referring to when you write "the left?" Do you mean liberals and social democrats like the Democratic Party or do you mean actual leftists?

Whoever you are referring to, do you believe they are opposed or in favor of freedom? Would you agree with the notion that pretty much all people seek and value freedom to some degree?

Is there a single, universally accepted definition of freedom and what being free means?

And what is most beneficial, being free from the risk of violence perpetuated against innocents and instigated by neo-nazis, religious fundamentalists, white supremacists and other right-wing extremists or giving them the freedom to spout their morally ambiguous and disproven racist views? Frankly speaking, is it more important to ensure that people are safe, to combat discrimination and to lessen the threat of violence in society or is it more important to ensure that hateful people who actively support the illogical oppression and genocide of millions of people get to spout their lies and falsehoods?

10 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Before, when the War in Iraq happened, for example, it was the left that argued in favor of authoritarian multiculturalism through cultural relativism in saying we have to tolerate seemingly oppressive regimes around the world because they supposedly just have a different way of understanding responsible governance.  Whether it was in Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, or the countless corrupt regimes among the third world, these countries were said to just be different, not wrong.

This changed when Russia became an apparently socially conservative country.  It no longer held onto the remains of the Soviet Union.  It was a reactionary country that was remembering the traditional motto of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality."  Likewise, radical Islamists who the left conventionally embraced were being dismissed by the left and associated with the right.  The right was accused of being Islamofascist when it insisted on disciplining uncivil behavior...

The guiding principle of American foreign and domestic policy is not ideology or truth, it's money. American foreign policy changes very little regardless of who is elected because the elected representatives of the United States are paid for by private corporate interests and only serve the interests of those who paid up in order to get them elected. Republican or Democrat, it does not matter. What matters is who paid them and what they want in return. In such a system, where money is power, you should not be surprised to see that politicians flip-flop back and forth between seemingly contradictory opinions. They just say what they're paid to say while providing the illusion that the Democrats and Republicans actually seek separate goals and serve separate interests.

10 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

This "fear of freedom" by millennials isn't authentic.  It's just a gigantic act.  The point is to just be melodramatic while exploiting the anticipated lack of discipline they will endure because people are too awkward and lazy to punish them.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that thousands of people are putting on an act just for the sake of being melodramatic? How does that make any kind of sense? Why would anyone do that?

[Dubayoo]

35 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Who are you referring to when you write "the left?" Do you mean liberals and social democrats like the Democratic Party or do you mean actual leftists?

Whoever you are referring to, do you believe they are opposed or in favor of freedom? Would you agree with the notion that pretty much all people seek and value freedom to some degree?

Is there a single, universally accepted definition of freedom and what being free means?

And what is most beneficial, being free from the risk of violence perpetuated against innocents and instigated by neo-nazis, religious fundamentalists, white supremacists and other right-wing extremists or giving them the freedom to spout their morally ambiguous and disproven racist views? Frankly speaking, is it more important to ensure that people are safe, to combat discrimination and to lessen the threat of violence in society or is it more important to ensure that hateful people who actively support the illogical oppression and genocide of millions of people get to spout their lies and falsehoods?

The guiding principle of American foreign and domestic policy is not ideology or truth, it's money. American foreign policy changes very little regardless of who is elected because the elected representatives of the United States are paid for by private corporate interests and only serve the interests of those who paid up in order to get them elected. Republican or Democrat, it does not matter. What matters is who paid them and what they want in return. In such a system, where money is power, you should not be surprised to see that politicians flip-flop back and forth between seemingly contradictory opinions. They just say what they're paid to say while providing the illusion that the Democrats and Republicans actually seek separate goals and serve separate interests.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that thousands of people are putting on an act just for the sake of being melodramatic? How does that make any kind of sense? Why would anyone do that?

When I refer to the left, I'm referring to social liberals, not economic liberals (whether in the American or European sense).

The reference is that before, social liberalism was in favor of freedom, but now, it's opposed to it.  It contains a highly opportunistic flip-flopping maneuver that is deliberately inconsistent.  It only cares about executing whatever strategy goes along with its objectives in the moment.  The fact is the alt-right hasn't existed forever, and the lesser of two evils thinking being advocated now is taking hostage the correct course of action; quality precedes quantity such that we should be pursuing the greater of goods, not the lesser of evils.  To say the alternate is to say those supporting the greater of goods have to compromise to do what's practical when they shouldn't.  After all, the point of goodness is to let people choose what's substantially practical in their own lives, not to corrupt due process in advance.  That lesser of two evils thinking simply lives in the moment instead of caring about the nature of cause and effect over time.  

I say this especially in light of how the discussion for decades has not been about the alt-right.  It's about countering affirmative activism and political correctness, something which even Trump failed on because he doesn't accurately grasp what that concept is really about despite distancing himself from the alt-right.  He treats it as a matter of victimhood where everyone's supposed to endure rugged individualism where they deal with it and pull themselves by their bootstraps.  In reality, political correctness is about people playing the victim when it appears similar to systemic history as well as abusing the politically incorrect and not being held responsible for their actions while appealing to systemic provocation.  

The fact of the matter is the left is libertine, so to claim it doesn't support freedom isn't just wrong, but totally backwards...

...and if you think it's all about money, then you really don't get it.  In fact, these are the words of Russell Kirk in 1986, two years before Trump the populist even got a taste of politics: http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/enlivening-the-conservative-mind

Quote

So it is that thinking folk of conservative views ought to reject the embraces of the following categories of political zealots:

Those who, imagining that all mistakes and malicious acts are the work of a malign or deluded “elite,” cry with Carl Sandburg, “The people, yes!”

I'm assuming you know who Carl Sandburg is, and keep in mind that Russell Kirk even supported Norman Thomas.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Rozalia]

The numbers listed show a tread across 4 generations so the likelihood is it will merely continue to slip for the next and so on. The truth is that people see Democracy and Freedom now... they say everything that is wrong and wonder why that is worth so much, why must it be protected so heavily? I myself still value freedom in your speech and life choices very much but Democracy? Don't care for it. I'll happily take a supreme leader if what gets done ticks enough of my boxes so to speak.

The want for a leader such as that is often talked as being a right wing thing, but that is quite far from the truth. Take the Bernie people for example. Do you think for a second if Bernie was president and was putting in place their policies through executive orders and trying to be a strongman that they would say it was wrong? Nope. They'd be besides themselves in happiness. Same with Trump's supporters. Oh they'll attack if it ain't their guys and policies they like being put in place, however if enough of their boxes are ticked then Democracy, separation of powers, whatever, simply does not matter. 

So I'd say it isn't a matter of being afraid of freedom. Simply people don't place as much value on it as they used to due to the obvious corruption and evil in the world. What does freedom matter when vile people are allowed to stomp the people into the mud and all that.

[ComradeMilton]

On 11/6/2017 at 8:07 AM, Dubayoo said:

pull themselves by their bootstraps.

LOL. You totally missed the point of that saying. Like you're almost the complete opposite of what it's actually meant to describe.

[Jroc]

On 11/6/2017 at 8:07 AM, Dubayoo said:

When I refer to the left, I'm referring to social liberals, not economic liberals (whether in the American or European sense).

The reference is that before, social liberalism was in favor of freedom, but now, it's opposed to it.  It contains a highly opportunistic flip-flopping maneuver that is deliberately inconsistent.  It only cares about executing whatever strategy goes along with its objectives in the moment.  The fact is the alt-right hasn't existed forever, and the lesser of two evils thinking being advocated now is taking hostage the correct course of action; quality precedes quantity such that we should be pursuing the greater of goods, not the lesser of evils.  To say the alternate is to say those supporting the greater of goods have to compromise to do what's practical when they shouldn't.  After all, the point of goodness is to let people choose what's substantially practical in their own lives, not to corrupt due process in advance.  That lesser of two evils thinking simply lives in the moment instead of caring about the nature of cause and effect over time.  

I say this especially in light of how the discussion for decades has not been about the alt-right.  It's about countering affirmative activism and political correctness, something which even Trump failed on because he doesn't accurately grasp what that concept is really about despite distancing himself from the alt-right.  He treats it as a matter of victimhood where everyone's supposed to endure rugged individualism where they deal with it and pull themselves by their bootstraps.  In reality, political correctness is about people playing the victim when it appears similar to systemic history as well as abusing the politically incorrect and not being held responsible for their actions while appealing to systemic provocation.  

The fact of the matter is the left is libertine, so to claim it doesn't support freedom isn't just wrong, but totally backwards...

...and if you think it's all about money, then you really don't get it.  In fact, these are the words of Russell Kirk in 1986, two years before Trump the populist even got a taste of politics: http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/enlivening-the-conservative-mind

I'm assuming you know who Carl Sandburg is, and keep in mind that Russell Kirk even supported Norman Thomas.

 

For the sake of your argument, please define social liberalism. 

[Quichwe10]

Hmm. Well, I think it's kinda because of how people have seen it be used. I mean, look at the giant shit show in the Middle East today. The introduction of democracy to those countries has done nothing to help the people of the countries. In fact, what's happened since we've toppled their dictatorships has made it worse for the people of those countries. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Arab Spring, nearly all of them ended in a disaster for the people after the introduction of democracy. That's probably why people are saying that you don't need to live in a democratic nation in order to live there and have a nation that kinda barely works at minimum. As for the issue of free speech, well, that's probably a bit of how people are seeing it used for. I mean, IIRC, there's a SCOTUS court case defending the right of Nazis to hold a Nazi parade in a Jewish neighborhood. The ACLU nearly went into a civil war with itself when it chose to defend the Nazis in that case. Nowadays, you have college kids being absolute !@#$wads, people running around again with Nazi symbols, the Westboro Baptist "church", and so many other things, regardless of political leanings, that basically just keep spewing hate and bullshit into the world because they have the 1st Amendment. Speaking as a pretty young person here, I can definitely see why support for absolute freedom of speech and the belief in the necessity of democracy has fallen after so many things that have soured the image of those ideals.