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 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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 9 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.

[–] banneryear1868 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You conveniently cut out the next definition

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 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 9 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 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 9 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.