You can just search Wikipedia. I assume you have access to the Internet?
It’s about the individual’s liberty from oppression, equality and usually keeping corporations in check. Ideally. It’s about things like the right to healthcare and education, the ability to have an abortion. The right wing of the democratic party is still neoliberals and even some conservatives though, which is why you’ll see people say liberals (in the classic sense) aren’t liberals (in the modern American sense) and the people arguing against liberals can then be seen as arguing FOR the fascists in that case.
And the shift goes back to the 1930s so not exactly a new definition of liberal either, just newer than the original.
👍, Kant, On the Metaphysics of Morals and Ethics, I assume you have access to the internet hmmm yes? lol
I know what liberalism is, I’m saying the colloquial use is meaningless because liberals have poisoned language intentionally to hamper critiques of liberalism. Strange that the people arguing against liberalism would be for fascists, and yet those are the only two (purportedly seperate) ideologies represented in federal US politics; wonder why that’d be if they’re so incompatible.
Liberalism is about capital, that’s it. The moral rights element functions to maintain the system, not actually enact some form of social justice. Rights are attributed on a legal basis within the state and are oriented around property not out of concern for the material security of vulnerable groups, but to enshrine property as the central value of human life. No, neoliberals are not fake liberals any more than welfare liberals are “good” liberals; both subscribe to the notion that capitalism is right despite the violence that is necessary for it to exist, and they differ only in the state policies they believe will most effectively maintain a system that relies on social inequities to function. Fascists do not disagree with any of that, they simply appeal to the aggrieved entitlement of privileged groups to critique the system as not working well enough for the people they agree should be privileged.
Fascists and liberals subscribe to the same genocidal values, but differ only in their tactics to achieve that genocide. Liberals, being in positions of power within the state, employ long-term, assimilationist strategies to curb dissent, such as appropriating the concept of social justice, as you’ve just done.
It’s been used that way for a century, you’re a bit late.
Turns out economics isn’t everything and there are also socially liberal vs conservative stances. Weird, right?
If you know that it means something other than what you say it means but refuse to acknowledge it, you’re arguing in bad faith and not really worth talking to.
Like I’ve said before, in the modern usage of the term, if you say you hate liberals, it means you probably want to own black people and hunt gays for sport. It may not be what YOU mean, but it’s what your words mean.
Can we pump up the bullying just enough for the americans to finally start using words they way the don’t completely contradict their actual globally-acknowledged meaning?
Liberal as in?
The American meaning probably
Whatever that is.
You can just search Wikipedia. I assume you have access to the Internet?
It’s about the individual’s liberty from oppression, equality and usually keeping corporations in check. Ideally. It’s about things like the right to healthcare and education, the ability to have an abortion. The right wing of the democratic party is still neoliberals and even some conservatives though, which is why you’ll see people say liberals (in the classic sense) aren’t liberals (in the modern American sense) and the people arguing against liberals can then be seen as arguing FOR the fascists in that case.
And the shift goes back to the 1930s so not exactly a new definition of liberal either, just newer than the original.
👍, Kant, On the Metaphysics of Morals and Ethics, I assume you have access to the internet hmmm yes? lol
I know what liberalism is, I’m saying the colloquial use is meaningless because liberals have poisoned language intentionally to hamper critiques of liberalism. Strange that the people arguing against liberalism would be for fascists, and yet those are the only two (purportedly seperate) ideologies represented in federal US politics; wonder why that’d be if they’re so incompatible.
Liberalism is about capital, that’s it. The moral rights element functions to maintain the system, not actually enact some form of social justice. Rights are attributed on a legal basis within the state and are oriented around property not out of concern for the material security of vulnerable groups, but to enshrine property as the central value of human life. No, neoliberals are not fake liberals any more than welfare liberals are “good” liberals; both subscribe to the notion that capitalism is right despite the violence that is necessary for it to exist, and they differ only in the state policies they believe will most effectively maintain a system that relies on social inequities to function. Fascists do not disagree with any of that, they simply appeal to the aggrieved entitlement of privileged groups to critique the system as not working well enough for the people they agree should be privileged.
Fascists and liberals subscribe to the same genocidal values, but differ only in their tactics to achieve that genocide. Liberals, being in positions of power within the state, employ long-term, assimilationist strategies to curb dissent, such as appropriating the concept of social justice, as you’ve just done.
It’s been used that way for a century, you’re a bit late.
Turns out economics isn’t everything and there are also socially liberal vs conservative stances. Weird, right?
If you know that it means something other than what you say it means but refuse to acknowledge it, you’re arguing in bad faith and not really worth talking to.
Like I’ve said before, in the modern usage of the term, if you say you hate liberals, it means you probably want to own black people and hunt gays for sport. It may not be what YOU mean, but it’s what your words mean.
I love how you’re talking like you know more, but you are obviously just working on vibes. This site gets more like reddit every day dude.
Take a read and come back: Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism; Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality; Jasbir Puar Terrorist Assemblages.
It’s clearly too much for you to handle.
What?
Can we pump up the bullying just enough for the americans to finally start using words they way the don’t completely contradict their actual globally-acknowledged meaning?
They’ve been using it that way for close to a hundred years, I doubt they’ll be changing it now.
Euros use it the same way, liberals have always obscured the specificity of liberalism.
Sounds more like you are obscured more than others.
I don’t think you know what you’re saying to be honest.
“Liberal” as in you’re in a different world that can’t see straight and words make you very slow…
Orioler as in???
Big L Liberal, if it has to be specified. I’m speaking from an amerocentric perspective. Not talking about liberalism the philosophical concept.
It should be specified, because your use here matches neither of those.