Libs: best I can do is going 2% slower.
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
102 points (91.8% liked)
Socialism
5249 readers
90 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 36 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
*proceeds to install a bigger engine so the next guy can drive 150% faster*
Seems like a lot of effort spent maligning a group of people to the left of the problem population.
Liberals are definitely part of the problem population
[removed by mod]
Liberals aren't leftists
libs are not to the left of anything https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
[removed by mod]
First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism :
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
Second paragraph from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property :
Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. As a legal concept, private property is defined and enforced by a country's political system.
This is in stark contrast to the first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
What you call “liberal” and what you call “conservative” are both liberal.
You're arguing that liberalism isn't to the left of conservatism. It's been fun. Thanks for the laughs. :)
Liberalism is a conservative ideology, yes. It's the ideology of capitalism and western imperialism.
Leftism is the political realm of anti-capitalists. In a political dichotomy, liberalism stands on the right with other capitalist ideologies. Leftists stand opposed to them both. Liberalism is the ideology of billionaires, of strike breaking, of economic prosperity for the wealthy being the measuring stick of how successful a society is.
Here are the definitions I'm using:
Dunn, John (1993), Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future, Cambridge University Press:
political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and ... individualism
Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan (2009), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice.
Where are you getting your definitions from? I feel like you're just making them up.
What absurdly hollow and self serving definitions. You might as well say "liberalism is defined as being good"
“liberalism is defined as being good”
I mean, Love Me, I'm a Liberal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
You're quite literally arguing that liberalism isn't liberalism because conservatism/neoliberalism exists.
you meant "figuratively" here, surely. Nothing that I wrote could reasonably be understood to mean "liberalism isn't liberalism". I'm not sure where you got that from, I'm afraid, and it's not my duty to help you achieve comprehension. Maybe you could reach out to your educational institution.
Considering your original comment is gone, meaning I can't even refer to what you said nor to my own response in its context, and that you basically instantly went to ad hominem attacks calling me uneducated, merely for what was either misinterpreting your original comment or disagreeing with it, I can only assume you're not having this discussion out of good faith, so let's end this here.
I didn't edit my comment- talk to your moderation staff. I am discussing in good faith and meant everything I said. But I'm content to be done if you are. Have a day. 🫱
That's not how things work. It doesn't matter whether there is something worse out there or not. Each ideology has to be judged on its own terms. What you're suggesting is a logical fallacy.
It doesn't matter whether there is something worse out there or not.
What gibberish is this? You've introduced wildly subjective metrics "better" and "worse" into a discussion about saving ourselves from exploitation, and then dared to suggest that ideology should be judged on its own terms ? Is this parody?
[removed by mod]
You seem to be lost. We obviously aren’t going to leave the socialist space we have created for ourselves.
So is red lemmy just a porn instance like redtube or why pick red when you're not even slightly left wing?
There's no porn on my instance, did you look at it? Seems typical that you would form a superior opinion without doing any research.
No, if your account has been allowed to stay on your instance, it holds no value to me regardless of whatever content is on it.
Then why on God's green earth did you ask if it had porn on it? Where did that even come from? rofl 😂
Liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of emancipation that historically sought to dismantle oppressive hierarchies and champion freedom and equality for all. In practice, it continues to challenge modern systems of oppression, such as capitalism and systemic inequality, that restrict freedom for the many while empowering the privileged few. Although the language of liberalism has been co-opted by capitalist ideologies to justify hierarchies of wealth and power, its true essence lies in prioritizing universal liberty and rejecting systems of exploitation. By aligning more closely with leftist principles, which work toward creating a more equitable and just society.
Nobody is free until everyone is.
If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd say they were purposely being counterproductive and driving away the only people who could conceivably be converted to their cause.
In reality, some people are just assholes.
I'm utterly confused: how do you define "liberal", and why do you think "they" are trying to drive "them" away by criticizing liberalism as a whole?