860
rule (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
179 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

according to @Custoslibera’s post

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I don't want to get into an argument about semantics, but liberal does not mean right wing.

Screenshot_20240213-205642_DuckDuckGo

It isn't about pleasing them or playing by their rules. It's about not giving them ammo to shoot your comrades.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Liberalism is a pro-free market Capitalist idea centered on the ideas of individual liberty. This is right wing. It isn't fascism, but it's also not leftist.

    The divide between left and right is who you think should own and control the Means of Production: the Workers, or Capitalists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    I'm honestly shocked at how many times I've needed to explain this, it's quite a bother.

    In America, liberal = Liberalism. I get it.

    I never said Liberalism*, I said liberal. Outside of America, liberal colloquially means those pertaining to the liberal ideology (not the liberalism ideology). Refer to the dictionary definition above for what the liberal ideology is.

    *(Nevermind I did say liberalism in a parallel post. Again, I'm not from America, but in context with the screenshot of the definition it's pretty clear I'm referring to liberal ideology)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, liberalism means liberal, even outside America.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It doesn't

    There is really no need to be this stubborn. Look it up yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It does. The term liberal comes from liberalism, which was founded during the Enlightenment. It isn't an "American" thing to tie liberalism to liberals, it's the definition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    It's the definition when you're talking about liberalism for sure. But that's not what I'm referring to. The other definition is the one which, in context, I am obviously referring to.

    one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways

    With the previous definition, it is clear I am talking about leftists. Context is king.

    But, lesson learned; don't use the phrase liberal outside of a philosophical/academic context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Leftism isn't a vague, general synonym for "goodness," nor does it entitled you to use terminology for a right-wing ideology as a synonym for leftism. Even in a philosophical and academic concept, you'd get a bunch of confused looks.

    1. Capitalists can be open-minded and go against tradition without being left-wing.

    2. Left vs. Right isn't about open-mindedness or a sense of futurism, it's about collective vs. individual ownership of the Means of Production.

    3. Using an Enlightenment term for a Capitalist ideology as a term to describe leftists is wrong.

    That's why everyone has been pointing out that you've been using terms incorrectly. You can either accept that you misspoke, and everyone can move on, or we will be stuck here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, let's be stuck here. I'm tired of repeating myself. There's nothing to be gained here, you understand what I was trying to say, even if you think my words were wrong, and that's good enough for me.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not heated, I appreciate that you've helped me to understand that I can't say liberal on the internet because people will misunderstand my intention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's more that you shouldn't use right wing terms to refer to left wing ideas, it's generally bad practice to pretend people believe in the opposite of reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    To be clear, when I did a few university classes on philosophy, the term liberal was used to mean how I was using it. It was not once used to mean anything other than that (except during the first time the concept was introduced to us, when the lecturer said the Australian Liberal Party isn't liberal).

    So for me, liberal is not a right wing term, it is inherently leftist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It cannot be.

    Leftism is not synonymous with forward thinking, nor synonymous with being open minded. Leftism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production.

    Liberal, again, is focused on the Enlightenment philosophy Liberalism, which is characterized by espousing individual liberty and private property rights. It focuses on things like being open-minded and forward-thinking, like you've said, but you're misattributing that to leftism.

    You've also been incorrectly saying Americans miscategorize the term into a right-wing term. It's the opposite, conservative fascists see liberals, who are still right-wingers, as leftists, due to the Overton Window. Liberals are still right-wing, and still espouse support for Capitalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yep, my bad. Yes, left-right is about means of production and economical sharing. Though, I would argue, leftism is inherently progressive, because communism naturally succeeds capitalism.

    I suppose one day leftism and progressivism will part ways, but it's unlikely to occur in our lifetime.

    So for now, I hope my intent was inferred, when my words were wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Now, you're starting to make more sense!

    I would definitely agree that Leftism is usually more progressive than Rightism! It certainly is, in countries like America, where the genuine leftists are also very advanced when it comes to social issues. However, because leftism is not defined by being open-minded, correct, or even forward-thinking, and merely tends to align with those far more often than not, it can be confusing to completely combine the terminology when they ought not to.

    It's like using "red" as a synonym for fascism, when red is also the color of Anarcho-Communism, just because the Nazis used red on their flag. It's better to use the proper terms.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    That's why I wear a Swastika whenever I go out in public, so people know that I want to spread prosperity and good luck!

    Thanks for clearing that up, I'll be more careful with using leftist/progressive/liberal from now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    those pertaining to the liberal ideology (not the liberalism ideology)

    This is confusing, you seem to be using colloquial definitions of liberal with political ones interchangeably, but in the context of the political right denouncing liberal political projects as "woke" suggests you mean political liberals in the US.

    When I see liberal parties in other countries, namely Europe, they are classed as center-right. Here in Canada they're a little more spread out but economic right for sure. For just a quick example, I support strong affirmative action, but for political liberals that has become watered down to "equality of opportunity" and disparity frameworks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    It is very confusing for sure, I've been chasing my own tail all night lol.

    The way I've been using liberal is how it is defined in that definition. I don't mean it as "a lot".

    In a parallel post I mentioned how the context it was used within my university classes meant as the definition as posted in my screenshot, and not as liberalism, which is naturally incompatible with the definition above.

    When I referred to right-wing denouncing poltical liberals, I didn't mean Liberalists, I meant those who hold the beliefs of the left/progressive.

    To clarify, when I say liberal, I mean those who hold the values based on the definition I provided (leftists/progressives).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, the said liberals have defunded schools, hospitals, trains, retirement and anyknd of welfare here in the name of "being opened to new ideas", so it's a bit more than semantics. Sorry, I don't want to be associated with liberalism.

    Liberal bourgeois are a significant political force since the French revolution - and always opposed people. It is and always was about the freedom of industry barrons and nothing else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Liberal ≠ liberalism. I've had to explain this so many damn times in this thread it's beginning to make me nutty.

    Look at the definition above. Those are leftist ideals, very different from those who are American Liberalism fanatics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For someone who's chief complaint is "leftists are really bad at communicating our ideas", you might want to sit back and really think about what you're doing right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The irony is palpable lol.

    It's my fault for not understanding that using that term online is not going to be understood how I intended it, based on how it has been defined for me (Even when I showed the dictionary definition)

    Though it is even more funny that so many people cannot accept that a word has more than one term, and based on how I used it in context, it actually does mean how I intended it.

    In any case, I really don't want to discuss the definition further. Hopefully people can understand what I meant in context, even if the definition they are familiar with, is different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I do understand (and I am sure you mean well, not attacking you as a person). But the confusion isn't just a detail here, it's inherent to what you're saying. Look up what happened in Berlin in 1933, for example. Liberal conciliating attitude paved the way to nazism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Liberal ≠ liberalism. I’ve had to explain this so many damn times in this thread it’s beginning to make me nutty.

    It's because you're using liberal as in, "wow that was a really liberal amount of gravy," synonymously with liberal as in, "a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's not at all what they said. Also, FY. We pay cops WAY too fucking much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't know why people are assuming that I'm in disagreement with them about most aspects of what I said.

    I am not implying that cops should not be reformed, or have their funds recalculated (on this point I have no opinion because I don't live in America).

    I'm confused to what I missed in responding to the post above. What did I misunderstand?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You implied that "defund the police" is some kind of bad "catch-phrase' and it's exactly what needs to happen. It's literally the function of "Dystopian" overpayind them while defunding schools and everything else is DYSTOPIAN & TYRRANY.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    What the right are hearing is "completely defund the police so only people who want the job will volunteer"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You are ignorant. Educated yourself and I ain't your teacher for shit that's loud like that. Next time you fail to educate yourself about something. Shut the fuck up about it. And that's just good advice cuz IDGAF how many people know you're so stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's liberal as an adjective, not liberalism in its political definition. As a socialist I don't have a liberal party in my country that I can support. They think capitalism will be fixed if there are no disparities in how people are distributed within it. It's like thinking equal black and white slave owners in the Antebellum south would have fixed the economic arrangement of slavery.

    I don't think liberal approaches are just unfavorable, I see how they perpetuate the problems they're invoked to address. We've seen nothing but wealth inequality rise as the latest liberal economic consensus came in to effect in the 70s. That economic stratification is what creates these problems, because you have ascriptive taxonomical hierarchies like race that develop out of economic relations like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    From the definition I provided, how do you think those ideas have contributed to perpetuating inequality?

    On paper, I don't see anything wrong with reform, tolerance and open-mindedness (obviously the paradox of tolerance is inferred, I don't mean tolerance of intolerance)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    On paper I don't know what those things really mean, "reform, tolerance, open-mindedness." They sound like good things but are contingent, open-mindedness to what, tolerance to what, reform to what? They function as euphemisms for something I'm supposed to imply on my own. I don't really have a use for this kind of thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •