this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26491 readers
4806 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Do any of them know what the word "liberal" actually means?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Do you know what the word 'liberal' actually means

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Open-minded, permissive, tolerant

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It means you support capitalism, hence why "liberalization of the economy" means selling off public utilities, land, housing, and resources.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That seems like one very specific definition specifically for economically-neo-liberal, only mentioned below all the actual definitions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My parents used to called corned beef stew "Pig soup" so my brother and i would eat it. That doesn't mean it was pork in there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Look rather than dunk on you, I'm going to recommend Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, because it gives a fair overview of what the liberal revolutions were about, why socialism grew out of that moment, and how there came to be this irreconciliable beef between liberalism and socialism. The whole thing is great, but 1848 is the real crisis point if all you care about is the schism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For a more succinct answer:

It's obviously tongue-in-cheek, but it gets the point across lol

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A liberal believes capitalism is broken and needs to be fixed.

A socialist believes capitalism is working as intended and needs to be destroyed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What's someone who believes capitalism is broken and needs to be destroyed?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Someone who doesn't have conspiracy-brain. The people that say capitalism is working as intended seem to live by the inverse razor of "never attribute to collective stupidity of the implementors what can be attributed to deliberate malice by illuminati-like mechanisms."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

OK, but that's not what the word liberal actually means to most people in my experience. Or perhaps another way of saying it is that a lot of people I see getting angry on Lemmy read the word "liberal" and assume economically liberal, whereas every person I've ever encountered IRL would use it to mean socially liberal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the US political media 'Liberal' is deliberately used to reference the policies of the Democratic Party, which is demonstrably Neoliberal. This confusion is working as intended.

Thanks Rush Limbaugh and all the hellspawn you've enabled.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The very idea that a liberal can't be socialist and a socialist can't be liberal is nonsensical. They are orthogonal concepts.

The division between liberals and socialists is plainly promoted in order to divide people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Liberalism supports Capitalism, Socialism supports Socialism. They are incompatible.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That's ridiculous. Liberal socialist societies have been and still are the best to live in.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Social democracy is a form of socialism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sure, if you change the definition of Social Democracy and Socialism.

We've had this talk too many times to repeat this same song and dance.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Don't know why you're being downvoted.

Liberal literally means free. As in "If it doesn't harm me, you're allowed to do it". So yes, openminded, permissive, tolerant.

Don't know why a lot of the US-Americans had to twist the meaning of it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Because in politics, liberal means something else entirely. It's an ideology defined by support for capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's absolutely not what it means

In the very closest definition, liberal means "if there isn't a law against it, you're allowed to do it"

liberal more broadly is just as simple: "if it doesn't hurt me, you're free to do it"

I mean, what do you think a "liberal democracy" is? The majority of Europe is made up of liberal democracies while also being social-democratic. France is a liberal democracy despite being heavily unionized and having huge welfare. How does that work?

It works because that's not what liberal means.

Socially-Liberal, for example, is when you are liberal (freedom-loving / diversity-loving) in social aspects. You support gay marriages, you support freedom of religion, you support cultural diversity. Other Examples include religiously-liberal, culturally-liberal, or even politically liberal (you support the right to different political opinions than yours)

What comes closest to what you think it is is economically-liberal. Which essentially says that "as long as it doesn't hurt me, you're free to do what you want economically". But even that isn't what you mean. Is Pollution and accelerating Climate change harming me and therefore not protected under liberalism? yes, says the absolute majority of liberals.

Is lobbying harming me by making my Voice less weighted? Yes, say a lot of us.

So not even economically-liberal is a good term to describe what you mean.

I don't know, what a good term for it is. But it isn't Liberal. So please, for the love of god, stop misusing it. Words have meaning. Invent a new one if you have to, they all began that way anyways.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The problem here is that in the US it means a very specific thing, while in Europe it means another specific thing. I think it gets mentioned every other time when this holywar reappears in comments

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In Americans politics, and you guys are completely bonkers.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It has 2 common definitions:

  1. Neo-liberal: a political approach that favors free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending
  2. Leftism in general.

You're almost never going to hear the right-wing use #1. Authoritarian communists will use #1 as a catch-all for modern capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's extremely frustrating hearing this repeated so often here.

It's fine if this is the colloquial definition you're used to hearing and using, but this is certainly not the way it's used outside of American politics and pretending like it's the only use comes off as both ill-informed and condescending.

When used derisively from the left, rest assured it is not referring to either of your adopted generalizations but a very specific ideology.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

ok, so among English speaking countries, how is it more often used? we've got multiple people in this thread aggressively telling him he's wrong, but no other definitions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

how is it more often used?

Look up liberalism for liberals.

I wasn't aware Americans made up their own meaning. Now I understand why upvoted comments mentioning "liberal values" receive a flurry of downvotes while I'm asleep, Americans have lost the meaning of another word, probably due to their media.

Though, just checking, the American dictionaries seem entirely correct still. Are you all confused?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The US is such a right wing country that liberals are the mainstream left. In Europe, liberals are centrists and they aren't further to the right than American libs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The meme says "American Republicans" so I thought we were considering this from an American pov. Definitions are going to change going to other countries and doubly so when talking about politics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

But the definition doesn't really change. Take universal healthcare. A liberal idea that's considered common sense in Europe and left wing in the US. Obamacare would be something you expect from a center right European and a left American. Both are called liberal.

And if the meme was from an exclusively American pov, it wouldn't specify "American Republicans"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It isn't just about it meaning something else when 'going to another country'. 'Liberal' has an actual definition with a history.

I'm honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don't seem to agree with anymore.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I’m honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don’t seem to agree with anymore.

Because regardless of history or whatever, the definition were giving you is how the 300 million Americans who actually use the term define liberal. Doesn't matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used. I really don't feel like dying on that particular hill.

I made my stand with "literally", I'm not wasting effort on holding fast to a Eurocentric definition of liberal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used.

I don't actually disagree with you, I just find it frustrating trying to use a more precise meaning to make a point and being met with resistance. I think a part of the problem is that leftists are trying to point at a distinction that exists within the overbroad american-liberal label that separates leftism proper and center-right democratic institutions, and i feel as if some centrists don't enjoy the discomfort of being singled out from the more progressive side of the caucus. I could be wrong, and I don't really care if I am, but I think it's important to acknowledge the tensions and to try not to erase the diversity of ideology that exists within the 'liberal party'.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think Leftists are trying to play up those tensions more than they truly exist, and some of the smarter ones are specifically exploiting the difference in terminology to do so. "Liberals", in the US, are actually quite left wing (outside of the "anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler" lemmy bubble). But by associating US liberals with European economic liberals, it muddies the water and allows for a ton of motte-and-bailey style arguments.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

“Liberals”, in the US, are actually quite left wing (outside of the “anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler” lemmy bubble).

Even with whatever scale you're using to make that statement, there is still a distinct ideological divide between socialists/anarchists/communists and modern democrats. A centrist may fundamentally agree with the central tenets of liberalism (the right to property being the biggest point of disagreement), even if they ostensibly agree with many (if not most) progressive issues. Most people wouldn't notice those differences because they result in the same types of value statements, but leftists see them in high contrast because liberals will cater their policy decisions around preserving liberal institutions (e.g. the right of private property, small businesses, market-based financial instruments, ect).

But by associating US liberals with European economic liberals, it muddies the water and allows for a ton of motte-and-bailey style arguments.

I don't think it muddies the water at all, I think it precisely identifies the point of disagreement. I'm also not even sure what 'motte-and-bailey' arguments you could be talking about, let alone having seen one in practice.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As I said

outside of the “anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler” lemmy bubble

Bailey: Democrats are right-wing

Motte: Democrats are liberals, and liberals are right wing

Establishing that "liberal" = right wing allows for a motte they can retreat to whenever someone clues in that they're trying to say Democrats are the opposite of what they actually are

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Far be it from me to point out you're doing exactly the kind of disingenuous re-framing you're accusing others of by excluding those to the left of you as fringe. Yes, American liberals are 'left-leaning' compared to conservatives (on exactly the same arbitrary binary scale that is being critiqued by the comparison), but they still share core elements of classical liberalism, particularly by the emphasis on protecting liberal institutions like private property and market-based mechanisms. This isn't about muddying the waters—it's about acknowledging the nuance in political ideologies. There's real divide between those who support these liberal institutions and those who aim to dismantle them. It doesn't matter if you think that perspective is fringe - the distinction being made is still there. We're pointing to a genuine ideological distinction, not just retreating to safer rhetorical grounds.

People making the liberal comparison aren't trying to place you on a political binary, they're trying to point to a distinction that you're actively trying to erase or dismiss.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They're pointing to a distinction that no one cares about (except the fringe - yes, fringe - Leftists who want to abolish private property) and using that as a platform to imply or outright say false things about American liberals.

Very similar to the above example.

Motte: I, a Leftist, am criticizing the liberal support of private property, that's all

Bailey: liberals also support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here therefore Democrats support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Jesus, I can't keep having this argument with you. I will accept "Leftists who want to abolish private property [are fringe]" as an acceptance of the assertion that American Liberals share all or most of the central ideological tenants of Classical Liberalism.

liberals also support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here therefore Democrats support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here

LMAO, nobody is saying american liberals support any of those things on the basis of their liberal ideology. I'm not even sure you understand what a motte-and-bailey is, those two arguments don't follow.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

nobody is saying

Gaslight <--- you are here

Obstruct

Project