User talk:Classial Liberal

With all due respect as an actual classical liberal I find this page rather silly. Firstly it completely misrepresents the philosophy of Classical Liberalism and the incredibly diverse viewpoints of Classical Liberals throughout history. Secondly it has a list of people who supposedly mis-represent Classical Liberal thought which in and of itself is false on at least two counts. Sargon of Akkad for example, Karl Benjamin, has never pushed an agenda other than English liberty and freedom of speech which is manifested in his pro-UK Independence stance and his distain for identity politics and political correctness. This is what societally a classical liberal believes. Freedom of speech, sovereignty of the individual, minimal government, Free markets, rule of law etc. Socially we believe that anyone should have the right to marry or love anyone regardless of their sex and that if a person wants to get stoned, as long as it doesn't cause them to do harm to others it should be legal. That discourse between people of different ideologies is important for a truly civilised society. Dave Rubin actually interviews people of different beliefs from left wing to right wing and everything in between. So basically I see this wiki page as unhelpful, mis-leading and generally poor in content and shouldn't belong on a wiki dedicated to rationality. It's basically lacking in any evidence and strictly an opinion hit piece and I am totally surprised to see it's actually had edits unless it has been destroyed by the last poster who clearly has a bias.

Disappointed that such a great wiki should be spoiled by this mis-information. It brings into question the usefulness of the wiki altogether.Classial Liberal (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whomstd’ve are you talking 2? Penguinsfunnylolhaha (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoever is responsible for the opinions on the Classical Liberal page. It's more an excuse to smear certain liberals than a good rational explanation of Classical Liberalism. Maybe you should read it.Classial Liberal (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should do that on the article talkpage if you’re that passionate about it. Not many people will see it here I don’t think. Penguinsfunnylolhaha (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * also please do this ~ at the end of your comments so that it’s easier to tell that you are the comment author. thank you Penguinsfunnylolhaha (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

First off, Carl Benjamin is not a "classical liberal," he's a reactionary bigot and fascist lite, and what do you mean by "English liberty?" might agree with you but no sensible person would, this is ludicrous. Why should you have dialog with a person intent on killing you anyways? Fascists have a proven track record of violence, no amount of "talking" to them is gonna change that. — Oxyaena Harass  12:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * being a sargon fan is mega cringe EK (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm yes today I will do civilised discourse between different ideologies by making horrible rape comments to women I don’t like yes Penguinsfunnylolhaha (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again more opinions from someone who is clearly against freedom of speech. The fact you call Sargon a fascist is rather telling when you are the one who is against his freedom of speech (a tactic of fascism). What exactly has he ever said that makes him a fascist? Yes he is a critic of modern feminism and hard left "woke" culture but that's quite typical of classical liberals. Modern feminism is generally collectivist in nature, buys into neo-marxist theories (from class struggle to gender struggle) and is generally despised by most classical feminists I hardly think that makes him a fascist. Judging by your knee jerk reaction and the insistence on calling people you disagree with ridiculous childish names like "fascist" and accusing them of wanting to kill people I think you might probably need to go take a chill pill. You're not a classical liberal, it's kind of obvious so don't assume your opinion is the only one and that you are always right. Classical liberals have many different opinions on many different things. The Early French Classical Liberals were intrinsically different from the British ones. But they all agreed with Freedom of Speech for example and liberty against tyranny. As for English Liberty I mean that most Classical liberals are for small government so the devolution of many laws down to an English Parliament would be an obvious choice for an English classical liberal like me. The Scottish and the Welsh already have this. Accountability, no taxation without representation etc. Classical Liberals often oppose large unions like the EU. You may not agree with much of what he has to say but he has the absolute right to say itClassial Liberal (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it more childish to tell someone they're "not worth raping"? Thanks for doubling down annd not addressing my points btw. Sargon's rhetoric is deliberately inflammatory, and some people will inevitably act on that rhetoric. Calling someone a fascist when they are one isn't denying them their freedom of speech, whatever that is, no one is censoring Mr Benjamin, no one. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from criticism, and the fact that you wrote an entire two paragraphs based on a small response suggests you're projecting your knee-jerk reaction unto me. — Oxyaena Harass  13:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Define Fascism and tell me how it applies to him saying "I wouldn't even rape you". Do you even know the context in which he said that in relation to Jess Phillips? It was to get her attention because she blocked a debate into men's issues in the houses of parliament. The debate was predominantly about the suicide rates of young men and as Benjamin's uncle committed suicide so he took it personally. These things need to be discussed. Because she blocked this and didn't care about young men committing suicide in the UK at an alarming rate does that make her a fascist too? I agree he could have tried a different tack and the choice of words wasn't ideal but it did get her attention didn't it? Still doesn't make him a fascist and not a classical liberal. You're being irrational. Do you really think all classical liberals agree on everything. It's not an ideology with a hugely long rulebook and freedom of speech ranks high among the tiny set of Classical Liberal rules Classial Liberal (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * My point is this. You can't just grab a word from history and use it to discredit people that you disagree with and expect rational people to go with your biased opinion. You of course have the right to say whatever you like and I defend that and maybe you're more easily offended than me but that's fine, each to their own, however this is a wiki that is supposed to be a rational place for rational people to describe things in a rational way and calling Sargon a fascist or indeed Dave Rubin for that matter on a page about classical liberalism is childish, irrational, knee jerk drivel not an informative article, it's biased and kinda stupid. I've been using this wiki for years to find information that was not as hard-left biased as anything political from Wikipedia and always found it to be pretty rational but it seems that's changed. Classical liberalist theory is a rich diverse topic that deserve way more than to be turned into a lefty propaganda page to attack individuals you dislike. Do you even class yourself as a classical liberal because you sound like a "progressive"?Classial Liberal (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is implying I’m not a sensible person? :0 --RWRW (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxy said " he's a reactionary bigot and fascist lite" You apparently can't read. First off, this isn't Wikipedia. Secondly, Sargon hangs around with Fascists, He caters to them as an audience, he parrots their talking points, and he's a sexist. No, you won't weasel out of that last one, he's notoriously on record with a history of deliberately sexist and inflammatory rhetoric, a dismissal of Feminist theory, and a refusal to admit fault and learn from his mistakes. Finally, your attempt to use "Progressive" as a snarl word betrays your own biases and unfamiliarity with various political schools of thought. In the words of some random weirdo on the internet, "You can't just grab a word from history and use it to discredit people that you disagree with and expect rational people to go with your biased opinion." 14:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You support Brexit and Trump circa 2019, what do you think Oxy means? 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I use the term "progressive" in quotes because it's a self imposed claim insinuating some sort of moral superiority when in actuality it's completely subjective and more often than not claimed by people who don't do all that much toward actual human progress. Basically it's just virtue signalling. On top of that you haven't defined fascism or fascist yet in order to rationally prove your point and if you really think you have the upper hand on me in this argument then we need to define our terms. Fascist-Lite is simply a slur for someone who doesn't follow your exact view of the world. Your need to descend into ad-hominem attacks on me "some random weirdo on the internet" is literally proving my point. My point is the author of this Classical Liberalism page has done an injustice to this wiki because it's unimpressively vague, misrepresents classical liberalism and was only put there (or edited this way" as a hit piece to attack or mis-represent people who don't ascribe to your view of the world. Who said I support Trump? Trump wasn't even mentioned and for the record he uses protectionist economic policies so no, I don't support him. See here's more proof that you just lie to yourself and mis-represent people because you just mis-represented me. Well done Mr CommieClassial Liberal (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * not too big on The Donald anymore. --RWRW (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You're resorting to the Gish Gallop, a logical fallacy and dishonest debating tactic. Either way how does that make him saying he "wouldn't even" rape that woman okay? Only a misogynist, ie a "bigot," would say that. Do you disagree? Do you go around and tell women that? — Oxyaena Harass  16:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, this is a written debate not spoken with a time limit therefore you have the time to refute everything I say (if you can). I explained context, something you sorely missed out. In order for you to accuse, arrest, charge, convict and sentence the man, at the very least people reading this should hear the context.


 * "The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments...".


 * I brought context to my claims and I heard this context from Benjamin's own mouth on video so therefore it's as factual as can be unless of course you can read the man's mind or provide actual evidence that he didn't say it to get her attention. So your Gish Gallop, well that's what you actually did, you threw a whole lot of accusations about the man at me and didn't provide any context of evidence, simply a biased opinion which you expected me to bend over and kow-tow to your brilliance. Sorry but I don't back down when the argument I'm hearing is weak.


 * None of your weak responses to my reasoned arguments does anything to refute the fact that this page is useless and should be replaced with an actual Classical Liberalism page that is worthy of being on rational wiki. Maybe I'll write one. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Classial Liberal / talk / contribs
 * Your use of reactionary jargon and continued dismissal of an entire school of politics leads me to believe you are not arguing in good faith. Further, your arrogance and attempts to (falsely, given your own vagueness at defining terms) claim that we're "irrational" and you are "correct" is an argument by assertion, and one I don't have to take seriously. You clearly don't understand what you oppose, you defend a reactionaries who whitewash extreme right figures, and apparently have poor reading comprehension given that you misrepresented me, while claiming I was doing the same to you. Citation: This edit which was clearly not addressed to you, given I pinged an entirely different user. I really don't see why we should take your opinion seriously. 16:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You still haven't addressed how it's okay for Carl to tell a woman she's "not even worth raping." — Oxyaena Harass  17:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends what you mean by OK. If you said you would rape her then that's a threat and of course that's not ok. If you say "I wouldn't even rape her!" yes it's a tasteless insult and I actually implied that I didn't think it was a good choice of words further up the page. But it's not a threat or incitement to violence so basically it's simply an insult. I've been insulted on this thread. "some weirdo on the internet" by people who don't even know me but disagree with me. Is it OK to do that? She's a politician who blocked a debate on men's issues, a debate specifically mentioning male suicide. He wanted to get her attention. That's the context. But you miss the forest for the trees. My criticism was of the page which is full of errors and simply seems to be a page to attack a bunch of individuals. And John Stuart-Mill a Classical Liberal. He wasn't even an advocate for Laissez-fayre. I've made my point. No point in going round in circles. Good day, I have work to do.
 * You still haven't answered how Carl was not a misogynistic bigot for uttering that statement. — Oxyaena Harass  18:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, for someone who claims to enjoy civility, you've shown a distinct lack of any. Do not bite and claw, and then complain when someone bites back. You came in guns blazing on a single issue, then got bit. Get over it. I do not view this debate as worth furthering, given your clear ignorance on the subjects you name. Dave Rubin has a clear bias and agenda when it comes to his interview style, and this has been clear for years. Sargon was endorsed by the EDL and actively welcomed such extremist endorsement. He also has a history of reactionary views. "British Independence" is a nonsense view. The UK was already granted preferential treatment prior to Brexit, has always been independent, even back when it was part of the EU, and further has been free to leave since the beginning. They however want all the benefits of EU membership, without actually being a member. Tough titty I say. They don't get to have it both ways. 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)