Are you a Liberal or a Realist?

[Taco-Calamitous]

Y'know, it's interesting, because I also posed this question to another forum I go to, and the people there seemed to lean more towards Liberalism. One person talked about how, one thousand years ago, the UK, France, and Germany were made up of many different kingdoms who all warred on one another, and then later on, each of those states were formed from those kingdoms. Everyone was healthier and happier for it. He argued that human history is leading towards unification, and that realism isn't really a thing. Then again, I don't know that that really touches on governments spying on their people, or the very real oligarchies that control most of our lives. It was just interesting to me to see the rather different responses based on the two forums; is it an age difference (I know at least two of the guys on the other forum are older gentlemen), a difference of culture (be it geographically or forum based), or just a different outlook on life?

Also, I'll note that no one on that forum thought I was calling out modern American Liberals, or that I had an "axe to grind." It's as if they actually read the message before responding, and not just the thread title

[Rowan]

Y'know, it's interesting, because I also posed this question to another forum I go to, and the people there seemed to lean more towards Liberalism.

colour me surprised. Liberalists are the enablers of terrorism. I strongly believe that its this pathetic idealolgy thats caused so much havoc in the world. Its such a hypocritical idealogy. Its tagline should be "Freedom for everyone... until you do something I disagree with"

[Alpha]

colour me surprised. Liberalists are the enablers of terrorism. I strongly believe that its this pathetic idealolgy thats caused so much havoc in the world. Its such a hypocritical idealogy. Its tagline should be "Freedom for everyone... until you do something I disagree with"

Yeah but terrorism is an expression of realism.

The funny thing about realists is that often their perspective feels defeatist, even when posturing. E.g. a realist tends to be "hard on terrorism". Yet a realist, if the shoe was on the other foot, would be a terrorist. That's why ISIS isn't exactly suing for peace. The world could do with less ISIS, for the same reasons it could do with less Trump. An honest realist knows that a war on terrorism cannot be won.

For myself, I'm just content with people believing that my country doesn't really exist, and living in a small town thereof, just getting on with my life, feeding my chickens. Fight over the mote of dust all you want.

[Rowan]

Yeah but terrorism is an expression of realism.

The funny thing about realists is that often their perspective feels defeatist, even when posturing. E.g. a realist tends to be "hard on terrorism". Yet a realist, if the shoe was on the other foot, would be a terrorist. That's why ISIS isn't exactly suing for peace. [B]The world could do with less ISIS, for the same reasons it could do with less Trump. An honest realist knows that a war on terrorism cannot be won.

For myself, I'm just content with people believing that my country doesn't really exist, and living in a small town thereof, just getting on with my life, feeding my chickens. Fight over the mote of dust all you want.

I disagree wholeheartedly. All wars can be won but that doesn't mean that there arn't long lasting impacts, if thats what you're getting at. You say a war on terrorism cant be won, so whats your answer then? Lay down arms and allow them to continue murdering people? I mean, yeah go on with your life by all means and just let everyone else fight and die for your right to feed your goddamn chickens.

[Heartless Angel]

Yeah but terrorism is an expression of realism.

The funny thing about realists is that often their perspective feels defeatist, even when posturing. E.g. a realist tends to be "hard on terrorism". Yet a realist, if the shoe was on the other foot, would be a terrorist. That's why ISIS isn't exactly suing for peace. The world could do with less ISIS, for the same reasons it could do with less Trump. An honest realist knows that a war on terrorism cannot be won.

For myself, I'm just content with people believing that my country doesn't really exist, and living in a small town thereof, just getting on with my life, feeding my chickens. Fight over the mote of dust all you want.

It's not defeatist. It's just the Nash Equilibrium of this game we play. It's the play which gives us the best outcome assuming we can change ONLY our play. The world could do with less Trump, if it HAD less ISIS. But at long as iSIS is around, liberalism is a losing play.

[Alpha]

It's not defeatist. It's just the Nash Equilibrium of this game we play. It's the play which gives us the best outcome assuming we can change ONLY our play. The world could do with less Trump, if it HAD less ISIS. But at long as iSIS is around, liberalism is a losing play.

I do actually totally agree with this. The conclusion is that we have a prisoner's dilemma, and although deep down inside we know that there is an ideal world out there just beyond our reach (idealism), the reality is that the moment we try to grasp for it, some dick will rip it out from under our feet. Our only choice is to do something about that dick (realism). Catch-22, the world sucks.