this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
518 points (85.1% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
6909 readers
2 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Easy, I use political science terms and traditional analysis instead of terminally online ones. The important thing to remember is that liberal vs. conservative is an ideological midpoint for the discourse being discussed and/or measured. You can apply this to any group or discourse — in the OP it’s being applied to the whole of a nation’s body politic. However, you can just as easily apply such a division to only self-described leftists — thus creating a conservative subgroup who still exist well to the left side of the entire population, but are to the right of the other ideological half of the spectrum of this subgroup.
There isn’t an objective midpoint in ideology that applies across political systems and time. Which is good, because the overall trend throughout history is leftward and a relative system is able to both capture that as well as provide descriptive value for a given measurement period.
I literally use "liberal" to mean liberal capitalist because I read political economics books. When you say "political science" and "traditional analysis" you are referring to something that is a lot less universal than you think it is.
Also like how do you talk about liberalism and neoliberalism in a non confusing way while also claiming liberalism is left? You didn't answer my question you just took a swipe.
Except this is a very narrow overton window(more like an arrow slit) and if you limit your discussion to it you miss a lot of context and analysis.
This is kinda unfalsifiable
Also like how do you talk about liberalism and neoliberalism in a non confusing way while also claiming liberalism is left?You make it clear with your audience that you're talking about the "liberal" in the economic sense and not "liberal" in the philosophical sense. From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative), and as the person previously mentioned, in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx's philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted), just like there are liberal conservatives (believe in small/efficient State but individual freedoms) and conservative conservatives (social conservatives).
Liberalism as a philosophy is connected to the economic structure? Are you referring to a different philosophy and calling it liberal?
Okay, yes, you are. Liberalism is literally the status quo.
You literally can't be a marxist and take Marx as dogma. Marxism is a process based ideology.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal
There, maybe you'll manage to understand if we dumb it down for you 🙂
The issue is that your definition is "dumbed down" to the point that it loses utility when discussing politics and conceals cultural hegemony.
No it doesn't because, you just have to specify what you mean because the word has multiple definitions and in OP's example it's the definition I've provided that's being used and you should have known because of the context (liberalism as opposed to conservatism).
Of course the word has multiple definitions, that definition just obscures the shit out of everything and isn't very useful. It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.
It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.Only if you use another definition of the word.
How do you talk about liberal hegemony (marxist definition) while using the nonsense definition in a non-bulky way?
First of all, I already answered that question many times and second of all, you calling it a "nonsense" definition shows that you're just arguing in bad faith because you're not ready to accept that you just didn't know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
Good night.
No, no you haven't, you've just been smug.
But I'm glad we are the point of the pigeon shitting all over the board and flying away, if that is how you insist on acting.
Do you think anyone born in the US doesn't know the most common definition? The rejection of it is because it is a bad definition that serves to obscure how politics actually functions. I also literally reference this, but you insist that I dont know that words can have multiple meanings. Who is arguing in bad faith?