As Texas Republicans try to muscle a rare mid-decade redistricting bill through the Legislature to help Republicans gain seats in Congress – at President Donald Trump’s request – residents in Austin, the state capital, could find themselves sharing a district with rural Texans more than 300 miles away.
The proposed map chops up Central Texas’ 37th Congressional District, which is currently represented by Democrat Rep. Lloyd Doggett, will be consumed by four neighboring districts, three of which Republicans now hold.
One of those portions of the Austin-area district was drawn to be part of the 11th District that Republican Rep. August Pfluger represents, which stretches into rural Ector County, about 20 miles away from the New Mexico border.
Arguable that things have improved for poor people in the last 50 years. In relative terms they are objectively far worse off. And native Americans were arguably better off in the early colonial days pre-manifest destiny. I know US liberalism loves the myth of linear progress. But I think it isn’t necessarily accurate.
Oooh that liberalism! Promoting human rights! Ruining all of my evil schemes to catch the smurfs!
Liberalism promotes capitalism. Which isn’t great for human rights.
So no, criticising liberalism as an ideology, built upon capitalist and statist-nationalist ideals does not make me an evil person trying to “catch the smurfs”.
We’re going to have to end all human rights to defeat capitalism, guys. It’s the only way, trust me.
I have a hard time believing your good faith. Are you seriously arguing there’s no pro-human rights ideology except liberalism?
Liberalism ≠ Human Rights
If so please please learn about political philosophy. There’s a lot more than “liberals” and “conservatives”.
I’m sorry that I’m not taking this conversation with an anti-human-rights activist seriously. Have you considered that by not respecting others you yourself are undeserving of respect via the tolerance paradox?
Dude when did I ever say I’m anti human rights???
This conversation is so frustrating its like talking to a wall.
The literal definition of Liberalism is an advocacy for human rights. Lmao maybe learn the meaning of words before you come out against them with fervor.
Edit: Are you from the US? Because sometimes in the US they refer to “social liberalism” as liberalism. If so then the arguments you are trying to make make far more sense. Vis à vis social liberalism. From Wikipedia
Previous comment: Oh my god. No it isn’t. Liberalism is a political philsophy based on enlightenment ideals.
Like Locke’s social contract theory, hence the idea (that often fails in practice) of “consent of the governed”.
Liberalism did give us the declaration of human rights. It also gave us capitalism. It’s a complex ideology that has been dominant in the west for the past couple centuries. It is not synonymous with “Human rights”, and it is not the only ideology that claims to promote them.
Plenty of anti-capitalist ideologies arguably promote them more.
And famous liberals throughout history have been slave owners. So please please learn nuance.