this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
807 points (97.2% liked)

196

16401 readers
3075 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

according to @Custoslibera’s post

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TimeNaan 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well then you shouldn't use them as synonims because they are fundamentally different ideologies.

Again, why would we care about their game and scoring goals in it or not when we know they can move the goalposts at any time? The whole optics game is rigged in their favour, so don't play. Leftist ideas are sane, they are the ones misrepresenting them as insane, no matter how logical they are. They have massive funding and a giant media machine to push it. Fuck them.

Do what is right. Simple.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yes, the game is rigged in their favour, absolutely. The problem is that their ideas will not change, they are conservative, they conserve their ideas.

It's the responsibility of the ones who can change, to be smarter about it. If we sink to their level, we are no better than them.

Progressives are smarter, but we're not acting like it. That's why I'm saying we need to be better at policing our own, it's all about mitigating needless stupidity.

Also, outside of America, liberal and leftist are essentially synonymous, so that's why I used it. But it's my fault for not remembering America makes a very different distinction.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

European here. They are absolutely not synonymous. Where I grew up liberals are the right wing, with socialists on the left and religious party on the center.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

That's the liberal party, same in Australia.

However, when I say liberal I mean it as an ideology, which is very much leftist:

Screenshot_20240213-205642_DuckDuckGo

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You conveniently cut out the next definition in your page where it says that it is related to liberalism.

And the leftism ideologies isn't simply being open-minded. It is actively promoting new ideas and policies that benefits the citizens. This is why we use the term progressive.

Liberal is firmly center right on the political compass and even the definition you post ad nauseum is indicative of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I'm not trying to deceive anyone. As I mentioned a dozen or more times before, Liberal does have a different definition in America.

The definition says "promoting new ideas and policies" when it says "favouring reform".

The definition I'm referring to is inherently progressive. There are no mutually exclusive terms, they are in fact the same thing by this definition.

[–] banneryear1868 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You conveniently cut out the next definition

Liberal (adjective): given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Finally, someone who gets it.

I subscribe to the ideology of liberalism, ie. Whatever it is, make sure you give a lot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I've noticed that it's generally a bad idea to discuss ideologies by label. If I talk about soviet communism, am I talking about what Lenin and Stalin practiced in the USSR, or the ideals from which they started and mixed with pragmatic realist policies, eventually allowing corruption to pervade?

Talking about liberalism or leftism as if it is a unified, monolithic ideology only confuses people. Even specific movements (say the Christian nationalist movement in the United States) there is still some ambiguity. They want the US to be a Christian nation, but don't agree on which denominations would be privileged (say, can serve office), are legal among citizens or are criminal.

When I talk about ideological principles and want to be clear, I talk about specifics. e.g. Everyone should be equal under law. Minors should have the same civil rights that adults do. Street drugs should be decriminalized, and drug epidemics should focus on treatment and mitigation. Force should be a last resort by law enforcement, not used just because a civilian has an unknown object in their hand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah I learned my lesson for sure. I won't be using the term again, even if the context is correct. It just isn't worth explaining myself a million times.

[–] TimeNaan 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How are we not acting smart by saying "black lives matter" and "trans women are women"? These are great, simple and to the point slogans.

The only way they can be seen as controversial is of you don't agree with these statements because you believe that black lives dont matter and that trans women aren't "real women". So that would make you a right-winger.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

You hit the nail on the head.

Black Lives Matter invoked a response which was "All Lives Matter" - it drowned out the sound of the cause to those who aren't initiated.

"Trans-women are women" naturally begs the question of what a real woman is and implies trans-women are real-women. Those on the left don't have a problem with this, but those on the right smell something deceptive happening.

The whole point of what I'm getting at is that there are moderate right-wingers who have been convinced by those more malicious right-wingers that the left is stupid because they say stupid things.

This is a war of optics, it's why the right is parroting the same crimes to Biden, what Trump was accused of.

I really don't think there's anything controversial about saying the progressives need to continue to make progress.